Is Raidz1 an acceptable risk as a backup pool?

[blackflame7000]

I have a primary pool running in a 12x2TB raidz2 config that has been performing well although smart shows some drives with high errors (crc failures - cable issue not the drives themselves I discovered).

I currently have approx 20TB of usable space on one server and had a 2nd one with simply multiple drives keeping straight backups of the ZFS system. I realize that is a very poor backup strategy but haven’t been sure how to proceed.

I have 5X5TB that I would like to use as a back up server that turns on once a week and copies all the new stuff from the main server before shutting down. I’m wondering if using raidz1 with the backup pool is an acceptable risk if I also have the primary pool in raidz2. If anything goes wrong with the back up pool I can fix it from the primary, therefore it’s pretty much safe to assume it will always be healthy if the primary suffers catestrophic 2 disk failure.

 

[rs225]

Very acceptable. Just remember to have testing and notifications set up on the backup too.

 

[Waco]

The only risk of RAIDZ1 is that you can lose data due to unrecoverable bit errors if you rebuild when a drive dies. It is not the death sentence that everyone exclaims it to be. Weigh the chance of a drive death or bit error happening on your backup pool when your main pool dies. In reality, you're already being more paranoid than most...you have a backup pool!