> I chose raidz1. With only a handful of disks, the odds of two drives failing simultaneously is fairly low. Only if you buy different hard drives or at least

> I chose raidz1. With only a handful of disks, the odds of two drives failing simultaneously is fairly low. Only if you buy different hard drives or at least from different production batches. I had a lot of trouble on the same premise and I won't make that mistake again. Edit: He mentioned it though ( a bit later in the article) > The problem is that disks aren’t statistically independent. If one disk fails, its neighbor has a substantially higher risk of dying. This is especially true if the disks are the same model, from the same manufacturing batch, and processed the same workloads. Given this, I did what I could to reduce the risk of concurrent disk failures. > I chose two different models of disk from two different manufacturers. To reduce the chances of getting disks from the same manufacturing batch, I bought them from different vendors. I can’t say how much this matters, but it didn’t increase costs significantly, so why not?