What's the best way to add a secondary drive?

[quazaromega@lemy.lol]

I'm on a Fedora Kinoite system that is entirely on one LUKS encrypted drive, I recently added a second drive to have more space and I'm wondering how I should make use of it.
For now I formatted it completely with a new btrfs partition encrypted with LUKS and to actually add I thought I could:

1. automount it to some location, not sure where I should mount it though, I've seen many questions online that say to avoid /mnt for permanent drives and also /media (there are contrasting opinions on that, though), so I thought I could maybe sidestep this question by going with the second option which is the following
2. extending the already existing btrfs /sysroot to span across the 2 partitions on the separate drives, but I didn't find good information on this process when LUKS is involved. It seems like that kind of operation is heavily discouraged due to risking data loss

So I wonder, what is the best approach and the one that will give me fewer headaches? If it is the second, how do I do it?

Edit: going with the first option I had an issue where the drive wouldn't be mounted automatically at boot, I then read through my /etc/crypttab more carefully and saw that the UUID was wrong, I had used the partition UUID (PARTUUID as seen with the blkid command) instead of the actual device UUID, after correcting that it works and mounts correctly. Just a small oversight, the hardest to notice sometimes.
References:

• https://docs.bazzite.gg/Advanced/KDE_Partition_Manager_Auto_Mount_Guide/
• https://blog.lambda.cx/posts/adding-a-second-encrypted-drive-to-fedora/

[koper@feddit.nl]

Have you considered simply setting btrfs to RAID 0?

[atzanteol@sh.itjust.works]

Raid level 0 increases risk of data corruption should there be a disk failure... Don't do that.

[koper@feddit.nl]

A disk failure will cause you to lose data, yes. But that's also the case in all the other solutions discussed here. Backups should be handled separately and are not part of the original question.

[atzanteol@sh.itjust.works]

Raid 0 increases that risk though.

[koper@feddit.nl]

How does that increase the risk compared to something like overlayfs? Keep in mind that this is btrfs raid0, not regular raid. If anything that decreases the chance of corruption because the metadata is redundantly stored on both drives.

[atzanteol@sh.itjust.works]

How does that increase the risk compared to something like JBOD or overlayfs?

It doesn't - they all do. I wouldn't recommend any of them.