Before we go into specifics, consider your use case. Are you storing photos, MP3's and DVD rips? If so, you might not care whether you permanently lose a single block from the array. On the other hand, if it's important data, this might be a disaster.

The statement that RAIDZ-1 is "not good enough for real world failures" is because you are likely to have a latent media error on one of your surviving disks when reconstruction time comes. The same logic applies to RAID5.

ZFS mitigates this failure to some extent. If a RAID5 device can't be reconstructed, you are pretty much out of luck; copy your (remaining) data off and rebuild from scratch. With ZFS, on the other hand, it will reconstruct all but the bad chunk, and let the administrator "clear" the errors. You'll lose a file/portion of a file, but you won't lose the entire array. And, of course, ZFS's parity checking means that you will be reliably informed that there's an error. Otherwise, I believe it's possible (although unlikely) that multiple errors will result in a rebuild apparently succeeding, but giving you back bad data.

Since ZFS is a "Rampant Layering Violation," it also knows which areas don't have data on them, and can skip them in the rebuild. So if your array is half empty you're half as likely to have a rebuild error.

You can reduce the likelihood of these kinds of rebuild errors on any RAID level by doing regular "zpool scrubs" or "mdadm checks"of your array. There are similar commands/processes for other RAID's; e.g., LSI/dell PERC raid cards call this "patrol read." These go read everything, which may help the disk drives find failing sectors, and reassign them, before they become permanent. If they are permanent, the RAID system (ZFS/md/raid card/whatever) can rebuild the data from parity.

Even if you use RAIDZ2 or RAID6, regular scrubs are important.

One final note - RAID of any sort is not a substitute for backups - it won't protect you against accidental deletion, ransomware, etc. Although regular ZFS snapshots can be part of a backup strategy.

I think it was a misunderstanding in the old thread. I was comparing the chance of failure for two disks in a row when using either Z1 parity raid or no RAID (as you stated in the comments in the other thread). In my eyes it was never about Z1 vs. striped pool of basic vdevs, because that game is essentially over after the first fault anyway, so Z1 is of course better.

But if you just compare multiple independent pools against a single pool with a single Z1 vdev, then the problem of increased load while recalculating the parity information persists.

On the comparison of Z1 vs Z2, which the answer by Michael was mainly about, the other two points apply. I should have been more clearly in the comments, but they are limited in space unfortunately. I hope this answer clears some of this.

I thought the same thing, but I didn't realize that a URE isn't just a bit flip, it spoils the entire pool.

If we simplify the whole thing, you have your disk with its controller chip on the bottom and your hardware (RAID controller) or software (e. g. ZFS) on the top.

If any error happens in the hardware and a sector cannot be read, the chip first tries to correct it on its own if possible (for example by reading the problem sector multiple times). If it still can't make anything out of it, it gives up (on normal disks, this can take minutes and stalls the complete system which waits for "successful" or "failure" message regarding the IO operation that is pending.

Some disks have a feature called TLER (time limited error recovery), which is a hard timeout that limits this error correction time to 6-9 seconds, because traditionally, most hardware RAID controllers dropped the whole disk after 9 seconds, so a single bad sector should not make the whole disk unavailable, but be corrected by a "good" sector on the other disks (a feature that a single disk on a desktop system could not rely on, so a long timeout would be preferable).

Now, let's look at the software side: if you configure your raid controller or ZFS file system with redundancy, for example by using mirrored disks or a mirror vdev as basis for your pool, your URE can be corrected. If you do not use redundancy, the data on this sector will be gone, which may be data you care about or just random old temp data or nothing, depending on your luck. The same applies to bit flips, although the chance of them happening seems to be more dependent on outside effects (like cosmic radiation).

Since RAID0 is not subject to UREs, the question is "what is more likely, a URE in RAIDZ or a disk failure in RAID0?"

I haven't accepted this answer because I don't think it adequately explains the relevant points, but I was planning on creating my own answer once I understand why UREs destroy the whole pool, if no one else gets to it first.

I suggest you read a basic explanation of ZFS pool layout. To summarize the most important bits:

• You can create virtual devices (vdevs) from disks, partitions or files. Each vdev can be created with different redundancy: basic (no redundancy), mirrored (1 to N disks can fail), parity raid Z1/Z2/Z3 (1/2/3 disks can fail). All redundancy works on the vdev level.
• You create storage pools from one or more vdevs. They are always striped, therefore the loss of a single vdev means the loss of the whole pool.
• You can have any number of pools, which are independent. If one pool is lost, the other pools continue to function.

Therefore you can reason the following:

• If possible, prefer Z2 over Z1 because of the increased load and big window of (negative) opportunity when rebuilding large drives (large being anything over 1 TB approximately)
• If having to choose between Z1 and multiple basic vdevs, prefer Z1 because of bit error correction which is not possible with basic vdevs
• If you can accept partial pool loss, segment your pool into multiple smaller pools backed by a single vdev each, so that you get checksum information and faster rebuild times on fatal faults

In any of the above cases, you need to have a backup. If you cannot or don't want to afford any backup, it is about what you are more comfortable to lose - some parts of the pool with higher probability or everything with lower probability. I personally would choose the first option, but you may decide otherwise.