-
TBs in size
Surly it's just about scalability. Or that 1TB is only marginally more expensive than 500GB (edit: actually few seem to sell anything less than 1TB).
As an eg iirc my back up external HDs have been 250GB, 500GB, 1TB, 2TB. Each time I've paid about the same price, and been driven by price point rather than storage requirements
hugo7-
Even so. Mirroring stuff at home doesn't increase redundancy that much. Burglars steal computers, laptops and NASs. If you have a fire, flood or theft, expect to lose your NAS as well as your other devices.
I pay Digital Ocean $5 per month for 250 GB of remote storage, which I replicate everything important and irreplaceable to on a nightly basis. This buys me peace of mind that should my home storage be fucked, I'll have a copy.
To be honest, even this is a legacy arrangement as I don't tend to store anything locally now and am moving to a cloud to cload backup arrangement. Surely the ideal endstate is to not have any data stored at home at all rather than mess around with NAS devices?
The arrangement I am gradually moving to is all data being on Digital Ocean storage, with a nightly snapshot to an OVH storage container. My google docs are bundled into that too. Costs me about $12 per month I think and I get to swap out PCs without worrying about copying data.
Stonehedge
What are you guys storing that is TBs in size and needs to be replicated?!
I only have photos, documents and music replicated and redundant.