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.

  • zyberwoof@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    29 days ago

    RAID is not a backup.

    True

    RAID is not for data safety.

    Not true.

    • RAID helps prevent data loss in the event that a drive failure occurs before changes are replicated to backups. If you upload photos and then delete them from your camera, they will likely be stored in just one location for a period of time. If you have a drive failure without RAID, you could lose your only copy.
    • With ZFS, RAID can be used to protect against things like bitrot. Even data at rest can become corrupt over time. ZFS stores checksums of the files to know if corruption occurs. And with one or more parity drives, ZFS can automatically repair the corruption when detected. Without this, detecting and fixing these kinds of issues can be much more difficult.

    I’m in 100% agreement that RAID is not essential, and that backups are a much higher priority. In fact, without backups in place, I’m not generally in favor of RAID. RAID adds additional complexity. That complexity can result in data loss. Especially due to user error. But once backups are part of the equation, RAID can add additional layers of security for your data.