[gav]

To add some extra emphasis to wazoox's point, RAID-6 is always a better choice than RAID-5.

If you're willing take a capacity hit for improved write performance, RAID-1+0 is great. Though you can only survive two disks failing if they are in different pairs.

You should also not look at RAID as infallible, if the data is important it should be mirrored in multiple locations.

[thaumaturgy]

> You should also not look at RAID as infallible, if the data is important it should be mirrored in multiple locations.

Right. Because it bears repeating still: RAID is not for backup, RAID is for high availability.

[vacri]

The simple way to support this is that RAID doesn't protect against a slip of the fingers on the commandline.

[lysol]

And of course, depending on the application, you should be using 1+0 for performance reasons over 5 anyway, if it's a database server.