-
Archiving to Hard Drives: Bare Drives vs. Enclosed External Drives
Hi – I’m working on designing an archive system using two identical sets of external, offline drives (and also, Amazon Glacier).
The hard drives give us accessibility, having two sets of drives gives us redundancy, and Amazon Glacier gives us an offsite long-term backup.
My question is about the drives: I see a lot of people archiving to bare drives, but I’m not sure I understand the advantage to this. The risk of static discharge when handling the drives seems worrisome.
I’m considering investing in 28 LaCie Rugged Mini 1TB drives – they’re built for shock protection in case they’re dropped, and I don’t have to worry about static electricity while handling them. (I still plan to keep them in anti-static bags in a padded box in climate control.) I realize that these drives aren’t Enterprise class but we only plan to access them a few times a year to check their SMART status, and if we end up needing them.
I’m also planning to purchase 6 GLYPH 4TB Dual RAID drives to use in spanning mode. For our years 2011-2013 we have about 3.75 TB data per year so each year would fit nicely on a 4TB drive. The GLYPH drives aren’t built for shock protection but they do offer two years of data recovery, and I still feel like they offer more protection than a bare drive. I think spanning mode should allow us to recover data from one drive even if the other fails.
Could anyone explain the bare drive thing? I feel like even if my external enclosures fail, I can still remove the drives and use a dock. Is there something I’m missing?
Thanks!