Selfhosted

60093 readers

859 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:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam.
Posts here are to be centered around self-hosting. Please ensure it is clear in your post how it relates to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or git here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require your active participation in selfhosting or related communities, or the post will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be self-hosted in full without payment, your post is exempt from this rule as long as you continue to engage in comments.

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 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 4 weeks 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.