Two e01 forensic image on one larger drive ?

Speak for yourself. wink

I get you ) Still, what is used the most should be considered, let's see a simple Google search

"hard disc drive" around 360 000 hits, more related to hard disk drives components

"hard disk drive" around 12 100 000 hits, more related to drives, not to their components

Also wikipedia likes the "hard disk drive" version …and you know I didn't edit all of that myself )

I don't tend to prove that I'm right or not and I don't really care about the right naming either. Let's drop this, we are leading the OP to nowhere…

Hello,
Is it good to acquire e01 forensics binary copy from two different discs on one larger disc ? From example I have two discs - one 120GB, second 320GB, and I want to do binary copies of them on one larger disc from example 1TB.
Except from fact that when I physically damage that 1TB disc I lose both of binary copies of that (120, 320) discs , what are others disadvantages of doing this ?

Personally, I would recommend to go the other way round make two copies of both disks and use two different drives for target images. This is the only way to feel safe in relation to your copies because you will always have a backup.

Personally, I would recommend to go the other way round make two copies of both disks and use two different drives for target images. This is the only way to feel safe in relation to your copies because you will always have a backup.

Yep ) , but this is not connected to the number of target devices.
I mean
1) copy of evidence hard disk 1 to forensic image on target disk 1
2) another copy of evidence hard disk 1 to forensic image on target disk 2
3) copy of evidence hard disk 2 to forensic image on target disk 3
4) another copy of evidence hard disk 2 to forensic image on target disk 4

and
1) copy of evidence hard disk 1 to forensic image on (large) target disk 1
2) another copy of evidence hard disk 1 to forensic image on (large) target disk 2
3) copy of evidence hard disk 2 to forensic image on target disk 1
4) another copy of evidence hard disk 2 to forensic image on target disk 2

are exactly the same, the difference is only the number of target acquisition disks involved, you simply recommend (rightly) to have two copies made.

@passcodeunlock
Google results are not a valid metric (JFYI)
https://web.archive.org/web/20160303182021/http//homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/google-result-counts-are-a-meaningless-metric.html

That sometimes may reflect "popularity" which not necessarily is the same as "right".

The use of the term has changed over the years, find here an early (1977) article
https://books.google.it/books?id=2OCeNK4EvckC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false
From it it is clear that around that time, IBM used the term disk.
Apple has a dedicated page to the "issue"
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201697
Of course both are "American companies that perpetuate the "disk" spelling" as benfindlay noted, still they are those that largely contributed to hard disk drive use, they should know what they are talking about.
If you check on the physical device, you will find that some manufacturers (example here is Toshiba) calls them disk drive
http//www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Articles/Sources/Toshiba_100GB/Images/image1.jpg
(but what does a Japanese company that manufactures in Philippines or China know about English?).
Seagate doesn't write anything, WD have either "nothing" or "hard drive", I've checked a very old Maxtor and it has "AT disk drive" on the label, and an old IBM Deskstar 😯 has a link to hxxp//ibm.com/harddrive that redirected to
https://web.archive.org/web/19991011190812/http//www.storage.ibm.com/hardsoft/diskdrdl.htm
where "disk" is everywhere…

jaclaz

… what are others disadvantages of doing this ?

Depends on where you work.

If you're not law enforcement … and you discover that one of the images contains CP … you are probably obliged to turn over the entire disk.

Would that affect your work?

If no, then it doesn't matter.