is RAID 1 + btrfs filesystem the ultimate backup system

[qwertzy]

Hi all,
I have been reading that RAID 1 is not a true backup system, as it protects against disk errors, but not against filesystem corruption.

So far, I've experienced my fair share of data loss, some from disk error, and some from filesystem corruption (which is mighty annoying--but that was during the FAT32 days, haven't had that since NTFS).

Now I'm reading about this btrfs file system which does protect against corruption. Does that mean setting up RAID I and btrfs in a NAS the ultimate backup system?

Thanks!

adding the link from which I gathered my opinion:
https://www.synology.com/en-global/dsm/Btrfs

 

[batniss]

Hi all,
I have been reading that RAID 1 is not a true backup system, as it protects against disk errors, but not against filesystem corruption.

So far, I've experienced my fair share of data loss, some from disk error, and some from filesystem corruption (which is mighty annoying--but that was during the FAT32 days, haven't had that since NTFS).

Now I'm reading about this btrfs file system which does protect against corruption. Does that mean setting up RAID I and btrfs in a NAS the ultimate backup system?

Thanks!

adding the link from which I gathered my opinion:
https://www.synology.com/en-global/dsm/Btrfs

No, if u want to save money, get an external hdd to backup the NAS

 

[beemer]

IMO I won't get raid 1 unless you have a lot of money to throw. You are getting 1 HDD space across x number of HDDs. Raid 5 will be more of a viable option

Sent from OnePlus ONEPLUS A3000 using GAGT

 

[xkiller213]

RAID 5 is good, but rebuild time would take longer the bigger the disk array, especially with disks getting bigger and bigger

I would recommend RAID 6 for systems with > 4 disks

 

[Rock-kun]

You got to be crazy to use btrfs when things like this are making headlines:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Btrfs-Data-Bug-Hole-Read-Comp


Build up a FreeBSD system and use ZFS on your array.

 

[qwertzy]

You got to be crazy to use btrfs when things like this are making headlines:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Btrfs-Data-Bug-Hole-Read-Comp


Build up a FreeBSD system and use ZFS on your array.

thanks for sharing, but the article headlines is a bit sensational (like all headlines). I may be wrong, but this looks like random data corruption on areas that are supposed to have no data anyway. Hence it is tagged as "low-urgency" in the article. I am first and foremost concerned with filesystem corruption.

Can you guarantee that ZFS has the same assurance as btrfs in safeguarding against filesystem corruption which Synology has claimed in the link provided?

 

[Piezoq]

Zfs is next gen. Many features not found in current gen Fs. Butter fs has been beta for the longest time and Linux hasn't adopted it as default fs compared to ext4. I will give it a miss unless it's plug and play.

Zfs is more expensive to set up due to the hardware requirement. It is resource intensive. But it is probably the best solution available now for diy nas.

NOte that nothing beats multiple copies of data in separate devices. Accidents can happen, for example physical damage that no fs or raid can save.

thanks for sharing, but the article headlines is a bit sensational (like all headlines). I may be wrong, but this looks like random data corruption on areas that are supposed to have no data anyway. Hence it is tagged as "low-urgency" in the article. I am first and foremost concerned with filesystem corruption.

Can you guarantee that ZFS has the same assurance as btrfs in safeguarding against filesystem corruption which Synology has claimed in the link provided?

 

[Maeda_Toshiie]

NOte that nothing beats multiple copies of data in separate devices. Accidents can happen, for example physical damage that no fs or raid can save.

QFT. 3-2-1 rule on backup. A RAID array is not a true back up plan.