91
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
91 points (100.0% liked)
Selfhosted
40728 readers
326 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 posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I wouldnt never do raid with only 2 disks, it doesnt seeem safe tbh, 3 disks min (2 disks as backup)
Raid 1 on two drives is perfectly reasonable.
its little money vs time you spent on it (backups are almost always missing something)
Raid 5 with 3 drives survives one dying disk. Raid 1 (mirroring) with 2 disks survives one dying disk. if either setup loses two disks all the data is gone.
When you run 3 disks then the odds of two failing are higher than if you run 2 disks.
So 3 disks are not significantly safer and might even be worse.
That being said: both setups are fine for home use, because you've set up real backups anyway, right?
you can use raid 1 with 3 disks gg (or 4 or 5 or 6.......)
yes