I like the idea, but it’s simply not a viable concept in present storj…
Really when using more than a 4-5 drives you should be running with redundancy, meaning a RAID type setup, hdd’s are simply to unreliable, and bunching them together in one node, which i’m sure is possible, but doubt that is practical for one you run into the DQ issue, in which a node using multiple HDD’s will have to be able to loss data without getting DQ, and while this from a SNO’s perspective seems totally viable, then it’s difficult to argue against that the further the data loss spreads through the network before being addressed, the more expensive it becomes to repair it… thus the logical method would be to repair it locally, or work with redundancy…
and thus this feature is doomed from the start, physics is literally against it… and not like gravity is against planes, more like the sound barrier… simply to expensive to try to break it for commercial fight to make sense.
Some Reasons / math
whats the point in such a feature, each drive is a point of failure at about 2% annual failure rate.
if we say the avg SNO using such a feature has 5 drives, than means a 10% AFR so 1 in 10 SNO’s using this feature would fail every year, rough math…
ofc the question also becomes how much data can a node loose before DQ… 10%, 5%, 2.5%
if it was 5% or so it would sort of be possible but then one is up to 20 drives and thus 40% AFR.
which ofc wouldn’t matter if it can loose data… but again rebuilding data is difficult, and it doesn’t become easier when it leaves your system, even if it then isn’t the individual SNO’s problem.