Selfhosted

61475 readers

1242 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.
AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

Raidz2 or btrfs for important document storage? (piefed.blahaj.zone)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I currently have a secondary pool (with raidz2) that I was originally going to use for my important documents, such as storage for Paperless-ngx, as raidz offers corruption detection and repair. The pool is encrypted.

However, I'm concerned about rebuild times (it's a pool of 4 22TB drives). Is btrfs a better choice for this use case, or should I just go with raidz like I originally planned?

Edit: I should have mentioned that I already have 4-3-2 backups configured - I'm primarily interested in the "self-healing" aspect of ZFS so that I don't have to recover from backups unless necessary, and to resolve corruption on the fly without me having to notice that a file is corrupt.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] i078@europe.pub 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

While redundancy in a drive setup helps, it’s not really a backup and thus not a “safe” way to store important information on it’s own.

That said, selecting the way you setup a raid system is based on risk and utility. I have a raid1 with a hotspare for important files. And use raid5 with 3&4 drives for less important stuff. You can also optimise for reading speed for example (as the same file can be drawn from multiple drives)

[–] chris@l.roofo.cc 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Like you said: RAID is not a backup. If it's import follow at least the 3-2-1 rule. 3 copies on at least 2 different media, 1 of them off site.

[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Absolutely, 4-3-2 is what I use now! MDisc backups have been great.