Hacker News Reader

My gripe with this is that the author assumes everyone has the same workload and prefers the same set of tradeoffs. I use raidz1 on my home desktop precisely because I would absolutely prefer to have to wait for a resilver than lose data.

“So backup your data!” - of course, but that’s just an implicitly larger pool.

View on HN

TFA suggests using mirrors instead of RAIDZ. There is no case in which RAIDZ1 is more durable against data loss than a mirror is.

Doesn't that ignore the fact that RAIDZ1 gives you more storage space than a mirror?

The comment I was replying to had no mention whatsoever of storage space requirements.

I use 10x8TB in RaidZ 2 in my home server. TimeMachine Backup for 6 people, docker volumes and an excessively huge media collection.

The TimeMachine datasets are backed up offsite.

Losing this pool would be a PITA, but not critical.

My primary goal with ZFS is some data redundancy. At a good cost. And quick remote backup for a fraction of the pool. Not performance.

At one point, 2 disks died within 2 days. While there was some panic involved, the data on the server could be reproduced with some time.

There isn’t a best solution, that fits all needs. If there was, ZFS wouldn‘t offer all the options it does.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com