I have a Dell Poweredge R230 with 4x 8TB Caviar Red which I‘d like to setup as company file server, likely running windows server (unless i go with btrfs and the windows driver is no good in which case I‘d likely use ubuntu server)

More than with sudden death of one drive I‘m concerned with silent data corruption, so I‘d like to use ReFS (or maybe btrfs).

Of course I still want to protect against drive failure, so what I wonder now is whether there would be any advantage of using windows storage spaces (with parity) when using ReFS, or LVM when using btrfs and linux, over a hardware RAID 5 and if so, what advantages these would be?

  • 1
    Honestly I like the prospects of both filesystems but they both are riding on the features of ZFS; ZFS is the primary reason I switched to FreeBSD, and you can run RAIDZ, which is an implementation of RAID 5 without the write-hole error that's present in hardware RAID. IMHO, I think that btrfs is much too buggy and unstable to be using in production systems; plus, Windows seems to be staying with NTFS so ZFS seems to be the better alternative here. – user962725 Nov 30 '19 at 16:41
  • @Varun Narravula and if you did that with 4 HDDs, would you run underneath the ZFS a hardware raid 5 or do something else? – user1282931 Dec 1 '19 at 3:29
  • You don't need to run a hardware RAID over the RAIDZ. However, to use RAIDZ you would need at least three hard drives; two would be for actual data and one for parity. You can add more parity drives as you wish, but if you want to add a storage drive, you need to do it in groups of two hard drives, rather than one. That's really the only caveat to using RAIDZ. In your case, you would use two drives for storage and two for parity. – user962725 Dec 1 '19 at 3:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.