>>3515184> your using raid as a backup.As primary copy AND/OR as backup. Applicable to both, really. You can of course only employ one RAID6 array and then do your backup on individual external drives or whatever if you're somewhat tight on money.
> raid 6 is already pretty much obsoleteWhat the fuck? No!
Particularly not in the context where you are definitely not interested doing distributed erasure coded/replicated storage because there certainly aren't enough drives involved.
RAID6 is a near ideal solution for small time local storage like this. Very safe, quite fast, easy, implementation is stable as fuck (on Linux anyhow) - an all around great solution.
> requires what, 5 disks to get started?No, three.
> [raid5] but in such a small setup its entirely not worth itWrong. Even if you have only a three or four disk setup, it preserves a lot of storage already.
If you put RAID10 on your four disk setup, you'd be allocating 2 drives to get 1 drive of safety margin. Even at this scale, RAID5 saves you 50% of the overhead (by just allocating 1 drive) for the same 1 drive safety margin.
And you do easily have the computational power to calculate RAID5 erasure coding even on a fraction of a core of a current onboard Intel.
> Youre better off going for speed (raid 1, 10)No, for the reasons stated before and because they're not actually faster.
Sure technically they have slightly lower latencies, but you aren't running a database from disk (rather than RAM) with 100k accesses per second - you'd do this off a SSD anyhow.
For the use intended, Linux software RAID6 is EASILY fast enough even on potato computers like some onboard J5005 or such.
> and having an actual backup solutionYea, on RAID6 preferably. But I already went over this.
