this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2025
131 points (98.5% liked)

Selfhosted

53057 readers
1036 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It's proprietary, after all. I understand paid is fine, but even then, it usually better be open source.

So, why is Unraid an exception ?

Thanks

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

The big thing is very easily mix and match different sizes of disks. ZFS as of recently can sort of do that, but its not as efficient.

[–] StopSpazzing@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Can 100% do this. Not just kinda. Works fine.

[–] percent 2 points 1 month ago

Can it access a file without spinning up all disks in the array?

I haven't used ZFS in like a decade, but would strongly consider going back to it if it can do that now.

[–] eclipse@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Not really with the same flexibility.

You only get usable capacity of the smallest disk in a vdev or you have to add a new vdev with your newly sized disks.

Unraid lets you mix and match however you like and get all the usable capacity (as long as your parity is your largest sized disks).

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

It can't, you lose space efficiency if the disks you add aren't the same size as the old disks.

[–] daq@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Mergerfs can do that too and you can keep the underlying fs as whatever you want.

[–] B0rax@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, but it does not have redundancy or caching. Redundancy can be achieved with snapraid, but how you get caching I don’t know…

[–] daq@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Doesn't work for every use case, but perfect for mine. I was just pointing out other options.

[–] B0rax@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

And that is good! It would have been a better answer if you mentioned these major limitations as well so that interested people don’t need to look it up :)

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It has no parity, you can pair with snapraid but thats snapshot parity and not real-time parity. Depends on the use case if that would work or not.

Also no caching options.

[–] daq@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Valid points. I use it for my media collection I can easily restore and won't miss. Cache would be sort of nice to have and redundancy would just be wasting space.

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah media is a good use case for it, and doesnt really need cache either.