62
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 15 May 2024
62 points (100.0% liked)
Selfhosted
39866 readers
448 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think this really depends on what you're storing. I have a large media collection and doing full redundancy would be extremely wasteful, but it's fairly easy to repopulate things if something goes awry. If it's irreplaceable or smaller files, redundancy definitely makes sense.
Sure but technically non-redundant schemes also fall under the category. E.g. RAID0, multiple non-redundant ZFS vdevs, etc. Those would be reducing the performance effects of single disks.