I would continue to say don't use RAID56. You can use RAID1, which will give you the sum of all your drives divided by 2 in usable space. As long you're not matching say a 4TB and 2x1TB. It's called RAID1, but really it writes all data to 2 separate drives, that's why the 4TB and 2x1TB example you don't have enough to write more than 2TB on separate drives. https://www.carfax.org.uk/btrfs-usage/ is a calculator you can play with

https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Status.html#block-group-profiles They still list RAID56 as unstable on the docs.

You can also use MergerFS+SnapRAID over individual BTRFS disks which will give you a pseudo-RAID5/6 that is safe. You dedicate one or more disks to hold parity, and the rest will hold data. At a specified time interval, parity will be calculated by SnapRAID and stored on the parity disk (not realtime). MergerFS will scatter your files across the data disks without using striping, and present them under one mount point. Speed will be limited to the disk that has the file. Unmitigated failure of a disk will only lose the files that were assigned to that disk, due to lack of striping. Disks can be pulled and plugged in elsewhere to access the files they are responsible for.

It's a bit of a weird-feeling solution if you're used to traditional RAID but it's very flexible because you can add and remove disks and they can be any size, as long as your parity disks are the largest.

The stability issues with RAID5 on BTRFS tend to be blown out of proportion. I've been using it for my home server with mixed drives of ~50TB raw for about 5 years without any issues. I use it for the same benefits you've noted, mainly support for ad hoc expansion while still maximizing usable space. Until bcachefs is released BTRFS is the only filesystem I've seen with these features.

That said, the mentioned stability issues, particularly the write hole, ARE real and possible. I wouldn't use it in a commercial production scenario or for data I couldn't stand to lose. Anything I care enough about has off-site backups, and my server runs on a UPS to mitigate issues from power outages. But for my purposes it's worth the minor risk for the benefits.

I understood that software raid on USB is dangerous as sometimes the drives can get offline for a few seconds due to current fluctuations and then will lose the sync. Maybe it's ok for files that don't get accessed too often, like video file backups

There is little benefit using raid5/6 over using raid1 IMHO since you can quite easily match discs to utilize all the space as others have already mentioned.

I got a tiny Lenovo M720Q (i5-8400T / 8RAM / 128NVME / 1Tb 2,5" HDD) that I want to set as my home server with the ability to add 2 more drives (for RAID5 if possible) later using its two USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10gbps).

Do not use USB drives in a multi-device scenario. Best avoid actively using them at all. Use USB drives for at most daily backups.

I wouldn't advocate for RAID5. I'd also advocate against RAID to begin with in a homelab setting unless you have special uptime requirements (e.g. often away from home for prolonged periods) or an insane amount of drives.

I will mostly use 40/128GB of its capacity with no idea how to make use of the rest.

I use spare SSD space for write-through bcache. You need to make the decision to use it early on because you need to format the HDDs with bcache beneath the FS and post-formatting conversions are hairy at best.

most of what I read online predate kernel 6,2 (which improved BTRFS RAID56 reliability).

Still unstable and only for testing purposes. Assume it will eat your data.

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

3 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 4 acronyms.

[Thread #270 for this sub, first seen 9th Nov 2023, 22:05] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]