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.
Maybe you could switch to a raid10 (mirrored striped vdevs) for faster rebuild time.
BTRFS is relatively similar to ZFS when it comes to their raid implementation, though using raid5 or raid6 comes with some caveats.
Raid 10 is and interesting idea for sure. It would certainly help with write speeds, although if I want to utilize the “self-healing” of ZFS, I’d need to do two (separately striped) vdevs that mirror each other to get the equivalent to RAID10, right?
I would absolutely not trust BTRFS’s implementation. Maybe things are better now but it earned the backronym Bro The RAID Fuckin Sucks for a reason.