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.
What about 2 mirrored pools of 2 drives each, then back up the main pool to the other with either ZFS snapshots or a tool like Restic.
Ideally you also need an offsite backup of important files too, but that gets you part way to a robust system that can handle corruption or accidental deletions.
Would this just be to help with the rebuild time? Raid10 in ZFS is an interesting idea, which would also require two mirrors and striping.
Yes mirrors are the fastest to rebuild I believe, it’s also to give you a backup, as any kind of raid or mirror is not a functional backup, it only provides redundancy.
I would not do raid 10 for the same reason of no backup that way.