I have a 2 bay NAS, and I was planning on using 2x 18tb HDDs in raid 1. I was planning on purchasing 3 of these drives so when one fails I have the replacement. (I am aware that you should purchase at different times to reduce risk of them all failing at the same time)

Then I setup restic.

It makes backups so easy that I am wondering if I should even bother with raid.

Currently I have ~1TB of backups, and with restics snapshots, it won’t grow to be that big anyways.

Either way, I will be storing the backups in aws S3. So is it still worth it to use raid? (I also will be storing backups at my parents)

  • Atemu@lemmy.mlEnglish
    1·
    16 days ago

    I was thinking whether I should elaborate on this when I wrote the previous reply.

    At the scale of most home users (~dozens of TiBs), corruption is actually quite unlikely to happen. It’ll happen maybe a handful of times in your lifetime if you’re unlucky.

    Disk failure is actually also not all that likely (maybe once every decade or so, maybe) but still quite a bit more likely than corruption.

    Just because it’s rare doesn’t mean it never happens or that you shouldn’t protect yourself against it though. You don’t want to be caught with your pants down when it does actually happen.

    My primary point is however that backups are sufficient to protect against this hazard and also protect you against quite a few other hazards. There are many other such hazards and a hard drive failing isn’t even the most likely among them (that’d be user error).
    If you care about data security first and foremost, you should therefore prioritise more backups over downtime mitigation technologies such as RAID.