That sounds like a pretty solid plan for your case. If you care about corruption it’s pretty good to be able to detect and repair corruption.
You could also just run btrfs with multiple copies on a single drive if corruption is your only worry. With btrfs you can pretty granularity set what is supposed to have how much redundancy.
ZFS…
I currently run ZFS on my home NAS (FreeBSD), and on my desktop & laptop (Debian). The snapshoting is so useful, saved myself by taking a snapshot before a big upgrade, something went wrong, boot via a USB thumb drive to a rescue image, import the ZFS and revert back to the snapshot, back up and running.
Also use zfs on my nas. For desktop use and redundancy on a single drive the higher flexibility of btrfs may be the better match though. Btrfs has snapshots too.
I’ve avoided BTRFS since the early days, although from what I understand it’s been a few years since single drive, and mirror & stripe modes are solid.
However, I got started with ZFS, so just keep on using it since I’m used to it and know it’s quirks and such.
I’ve been using it on most of my systems for probably 10 years now. I have never had it fail on me. I don’t get why people always hate on it and when I ask them to provide reasons, they never have any examples where it did them wrong. Meh, I love btrfs.
My Framework 16 currently has Arch, Ubuntu, and Fedora all installed on the same partition, under their own subvolumes on btrfs. Pretty awesome way to not waste more space than you have to, all while keeping each OS completely separate.
Mostly it was the early days, then it got to be habit.
Although still don’t try and use RAID5/6 AFAIK. Not sure if that’ll ever end up being fixed. Good quality filesystems are HARD.
I got away with running btrfs raid 6 right when they had problems XD, never had any noticeable data loss and I changed the structure a lot during this time. Being able to just add a drive to the array was a feature I kept missing in zfs for a long time and even the kinda implementation that zfs is getting/has now is just a shadow of the flexibility btrfs brings.
But for desktop use the flexibility is even more useful imo. The multiple copies option especially would be an exact fit for your data corruption paranoia, with 2 or 3 copies and check-summing you can be pretty sure the file you get is exactly what you gave it or not at all even on a single drive (you are still gonna need to do backups i case your drives die or the whole laptop disappears or decides to put 18v on the 3.3 rail and fries both ssds or whatever).
My nas is definitely gonna stay zfs for the foreseeable future though.
I don’t use raid5/6 on btrfs, but reading about it my understanding is that it was fine as long as you had metadata set to raid1. btrfs just has a few gatchas that will ruin our day if you have no idea what you are doing. It doesn’t hold your hand
Afaik those issues have been fixed long ago (the reputation it got from them outlives them though XD), I was just running it while they were a thing and got away with it.
I don’t think zfs holds your hands any more or less than btrfs does, both are extremely robust at this point.
This is just for reference for the community, to say that the Corsair MP 600 2tb 2230 ssd works flawlessly, fits like a charm and works without heat issues. FW16 also does a good job dissipating heat through the bottom of the laptop, even when downloading and installing 160gb games for example in one go it does not have any issues and does not get overly hot. Also gaming from it works without issue.
https://www.amazon.de/Corsair-MP600-CORE-Mini-NVMe/dp/B0CKXXY791
I went with a SABRENT 2230, it works with no issues since I’ve installed it.
(It’s not the most technical overview I know but here we are)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0BQG6JCRP?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
I personally went with the 1TB WD PC SN740 (happened to be on bargain sale at a German retailer when I looked around for it), however I find this site quite useful to get an overview of available models, which ones are re-brands and general attributes: List: 2TB, 1TB, 512GB M.2 2230 SSDs (January 2024) – upgrades for Surface Pro/Laptop, SteamDeck, XBox Series X, etc. – Dan S. Charlton
Weird question: could you run the FW16 with just the secondary M.2 2230 size slot filled, and nothing in the main 2280 sized slot?
Yes, I did that to start with using an SK Hynix 256GB which I loaded with Win10.
Logically that would make sense however that’s not how the physical reality works. With a single bit per cell, the cell is either charged or not charged. Like how electricity is typically explained like water, imagine that each cell is like a cup of water. With a single bit per cell, each cell should either have water or not have water. In reality, there will be some cutoff such that a small amount of water is treated as no water, but still, it either has water or doesn’t have water.
Now you get to two bits per cell, which was typically called “MLC” or Multi-Level cells. Well, now you need to store 2 bits per cell, which translates into four different positions (the total number of possibilities for two bits): You have your original empty and full, but now you also have two states in between. Lets say 00 is 0-25%, 01 is 25-50%, 10 is 50-75%, and 11 is 75-100%. Well, you’re going to want to fill that cup to the most precise amount possible. You can get away with 00 being 0% and 11 being 100%, but what about 01 and 10? If you came across a glass that was exactly 50% full, is that 01 or 10? So you need to ensure that you’re within the magins by a good amount to ensure that you’re not “too close” to the other number. So, for 01 you’re going to want to be precisely 37.5% and for 10 precisely 62.5% to ensure that you have the best chance of being read as the correct value.
Now for TLC, for three bits per cell, you now have 8 positions. QLC has 16 different positions. If you had to fill a cup of water to 16 distinct positions, it would take you a while, wouldn’t it? And when you’re reading what the value is, you better have a well-calibrated eyecrometer or you’re going to get it wrong, thus you’re going to need specialized equipment to read the precise value and again hope that when you filled the cup up in the first place you were precise enough such that said specialized equipment is able to determine the proper value with a good margin of error.
I personally doubt we’re going to see much beyond QLC in the future. TLC, at the moment, seems to be the sweet spot between performance and reliability. There are a handful of drives that can write at 1.5GB/s+ while writing natively to TLC which is more than enough for most people’s usages, while QLC drives still generally fall flat on their face when writing natively, down to say 60MB/s or even less, well slower than a lot of HDDs.
On top of all that, the way manufacturers have been increasing capacity lately is not via increasing the bits per cell, but by increasing the number of layers per chip along with making the cells physically smaller. So when you hear for instance Micron “176-layer NAND” or “232-layer NAND”, they’re literally stacking the nand on top of each other to get that capacity. Realistically at some point we’re going to see that reach some maximum limit as well and then we’re going to be stuck capacity/speed wise for a while until we figure out some other way to make disks bigger and faster.
…or maybe not. Moore’s law has continued finding a way.
Has anyone tried this 2230 SSD yet?
I wonder if this will generate less heat than my current full size 2280 Samsung 990 Pro?