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.

  • xrun_detected@programming.devEnglish
    5·
    17 hours ago

    I’d stay on zfs, I simply don’t trust btrfs’ raid implementation. For very important documents I also set copies=2 (or 3) on that dataset, just in case.

    And as others already said: 3-2-1 backups ;)