Looks like they built a new NAS, but kept using the same drives. Which given the number of drive bays in the NAS probably make up a large majority of the overall cost in something like this.

Edit: reading comprehension fail - they bought drives earlier, at an unspecified price, but they weren't from the old NAS - I agree, when lifetimes of drives are measures in decades and huge amounts of tbw it seems pretty silly to buy new ones every time.

▲

throwaway2037 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This is the funniest edit have read in while.

▲

adastra22 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

MB and other elements are more concerning than the drives.

▲

zdragnar an hour ago | parent [-]

For system failure, yes, but not if data retention and recovery is your primary concern.

When building a device primarily used for storing personal things, I'd much prefer to save money on the motherboard and risk that failing than skimping on the drives themselves

	▲	embedding-shape 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Eh, cheap motherboards aren't a panacea that can't hurt the rest of the hardware, I personally don't skimp on motherboards, and would much rather skimp on the drives themselves as I have redundancy and 1-2 drives failing wouldn't hurt too much. And data retention is my top priority. Motherboards have fried connected hardware before, poor grounding/ESD protections, firmware bugs together with aggressive power management, wiring weirdness and power related faults have broken people's drives before. What I've never heard about is a drive breaking something else in a system, but broken motherboards have taken friends with them more than once.