• taladar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Your home NAS being at your home means you don’t have redundancy for many things that can happen to your home PC (electric issues, fire or water damage, theft,…).

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Yup, at minimum you’d need another NAS off site (say, at a friend’s house) so you always have a copy. I have my NAS in a mirror to ensure I can recover if a drive fails, so that would mean 4x the cost of whatever storage size you need if you want to ensure your data stays safe.

      Just some quick math, a WD Red Plus 10TB drive costs $190. So that’s $19/TB, and they have a 3-year warranty (used to be 5), so let’s assume they last 3-5 years. I need four drives minimum (two sets of mirrors), though if I have a lot of data and drives, that’ll go down (e.g. if I can use RAID 5 or RAID 6, I need less parity):

      19 * 4 / 3 = $25/year
      19 * 4 / 5 = $15/year
      

      So $15-25/year, or $1.5-2/month, which comes with a few caveats:

      • can’t easily expand storage (e.g. can’t just add 1TB), so need to overbuy; I have 8TB storage, but use less than half of that, so probably double the above cost
      • ignores PC costs, which can be hundreds every few years ($5-10/month) to replace aging components (esp PSU and RAM),; ideally get ECC RAM to reduce risk of bit rot
      • ignores electricity - assuming 100W, running 24/7, and $0.12/KWh, that’s ~$9/month

      There is a crossover point at which self-hosting is cheaper, but if you only need 1-4TB of storage, something like Backblaze is probably cheaper. But as you get bigger, the NAS looks more attractive.