thank you very much for posting this series

And I am fed up now … The hw tech is continuously improving and expanding in terms of storage size… But these fs problems a severe headache..

I just wanted to ask for a suggestion from you. Is it much better and less error prone to use all my partitions as zfs instead of NTFS. As ntfs is closed source,the extent to which any recovery tool can help will always be far lesser than to open fs like zfs?

I would have to deal with incompatibility on windows.. I know that.. But integrity of data is much note important to me.. And of course if this could fine me less headaches this would be worth.

What do you suggest?

Kind of late to contribute here but I am searching for the required information now for some time without a positive answer. I am mostly concerned to use ZFS against bit rot. My problem (I guess off understanding 😉 is, which of the pool layouts would be best against bit rot.

As I understodd, just a simple RAIDZ1 would be enough to correct simple bit flips since it can reconstruct the correct bit value from the checksum(s). Can you confirm this?

Then, all examples on the web do not use RAIDZ1 to illustrate the correction of bit flips but all use mirroring. Here is my misconception I guess, maybe you can explain it. Of course, a mirror can always reconstruct a faulty bit, given, the mirror’s content is not affected in the first place. Hence, the difference between a RAIDZ1 and a mirrored pool in terms of bit flips is just that the first one is much more space conserving while the latter one would be faster. In terms of data integrity concerning bit flips both would be equal, is that correct?

Then, is there any reason one would use RAIDZ1 together with a mirror against bit rot?

Marc