Let's say I wanted to run a server for a bunch of people (eg. my comrades). Which of these storage solutions would be safer?
1. RAID 0+1 with 4 disks ( https://www.45drives.com/wiki/index.php?title=RAID_01)
2. RAID 0 with 2 disks + incremental daily backups on 1 drive
Boosts welcome!
@Antanicus From the two choices, #1 would be "safer" with the exception of RAID0+1. Instead, create RAID1+0; your base RAID arrays are mirrored and then striped, vs. striped and then mirrored. I'll assume you're looking for performance since you didn't mention RAID6 (4 disks)... Our BGFS metadata servers use RAID1+0 arrays with a hot spare for each.
@desantis what is the advantage of 1+0 over 0+1?
@Antanicus Redundancy! I think this URL best explains it:
https://ferdinand-muetsch.de/why-raid-10-is-better-than-raid-01.html. The second answer in the URL https://serverfault.com/questions/145319/is-there-a-difference-between-raid-10-10-and-raid-01-01 explains the probability of failure, mathematically.
@desantis thanks! This solved the storage matter :)
@Antanicus No problem.... now, about that bread that you make....
@Antanicus Option 1 should be technically safer, but I'd live on the edge on option 2 and regular backups, with no regrets.
@cirku17 @Antanicus 🤣 Live by the sword, die by the sword.
@Antanicus Between those two, 1 will give you more absolute uptime.
I'm running a similar setup, and I'm running a Software "Raid 10" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels#Linux_MD_RAID_10, which is really just a flexible striping arrangement. Can be grown, is 1 drive fault tolerant (and when the array grows enough, I'll switch to 2 drive fault tolerant). I do off-site backups using Borg backup and BackBlaze B2. Encrypted, incremental, costs less than $2 a month.