Selfhosted

61475 readers

891 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

[–] felbane@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Yes, valid points that I didn't really want to muddy the discussion with. In my experience, most people hear the Redundant in RAID and think that's sufficient and that their data is safe. Maybe poor choice of words on my part, but that's what I meant re: "data safety."

You're fully correct that a proper RAID setup can provide additional layers of availability atop a robust backup process, but I'd wager most of the people who are interested in that extra layer are already aware of the limitations of RAID.

I do run RAIDZ1 on my franken-nas due to limited drive sizes on that machine, the goal being to maximize usable space while providing a sufficient amount of time to address a drive failure. If drive prices ever become reasonable again, I'll likely rebuild the system with 6-8 drives in a RAIDZ2 configuration just for a little more peace of mind, but as long as my off-site backups are running, I sleep at night just fine.