view the rest of the comments
datahoarder
Who are we?
We are digital librarians. Among us are represented the various reasons to keep data -- legal requirements, competitive requirements, uncertainty of permanence of cloud services, distaste for transmitting your data externally (e.g. government or corporate espionage), cultural and familial archivists, internet collapse preppers, and people who do it themselves so they're sure it's done right. Everyone has their reasons for curating the data they have decided to keep (either forever or For A Damn Long Time). Along the way we have sought out like-minded individuals to exchange strategies, war stories, and cautionary tales of failures.
We are one. We are legion. And we're trying really hard not to forget.
-- 5-4-3-2-1-bang from this thread
I think there isn't much of a difference in your case, but, also, 3.5" are generally a better choice than 2.5" in all aspects except portability.
Higher performing HDDs tend to be 3.5", which might have higher RPM (higher read and write speeds), and bigger solid-state cache to speed up writes. I think 3.5's tend to be more fault-tolerant too.
In your case, you probably wont need more than the average read speed. A large write cache could be useful, especially if you have a fast internet: if your cache is too small, your download speed will be capped by the write speed of your HDD. Torrenting writes in random access rather than sequential, and random access writes are quite slow on HDDs.
You can circumvent the write cache problem in several ways:
If you are torrenting to the HDD directly, then use a 4K extent size for btrfs or ZFS.
I've read that larger cache size can be an indicator of SMR drives. Other than that, I don't really care about it.
To confirm your uncertainties, I can indeed use the external caching mechanisms on btrfs.
How much would the RPM affect things? I'd think the lower RPM would be less problematic, at least where longetivity and noise is concerned.
Also, what's your reasoning for the extent size?