Not feeling spoiled at all, not at all. Especially not with 2 to 3 percent of failure rate. The failure rate I experienced in my workstation makes me worry about not having raid 1 or 10. HDs for 9 TB in raid 10 are not that cheap.
But the bigger issue is that the warranty terms for HDs nowadays is down to 2 or 3 years, so this investment is short living. It also tell you something about the manufacturers reliability estimation of their products.
Can't say I agree with that sentiment. The fact that I can quite reasonably have a 30TB usable RAID5 NAS array makes me feel pretty spoiled. Then again, I'm old enough that my first HDD was 10MB.
Mine was 10MB as well, with a dedicated controller. Quantum if I'm not mistaken. And it lasted much much longer than the averages I get from 4TB disks. I believe I managed to take files out of it in 2000, about 13 years after it was installed.
I'd be wary of making a RAID5 array with drives that big; you could easily lose another drive from the I/O caused by a rebuild; though if you have backups (you should) then it's probably an acceptable risk for non-critical data.
I'd agree with that. Even 2-disk redundancy these days is a bit dangerous when you're talking about 14TB drives and 100+TB arrays. As is often stated: RAID is not backup.
But the bigger issue is that the warranty terms for HDs nowadays is down to 2 or 3 years, so this investment is short living. It also tell you something about the manufacturers reliability estimation of their products.