Hacker News Reader

RAID-6 and RAID-10 are the usual go-tos.

I use RAID-Z, a feature of ZFS. It works great.

It's slightly better than hardware raid5, but raidz2 is much better, and raid10 (also possible with zfs) is much faster as well as more reliable.

You didn't look, apparently. Even the URL of the "Why should I not use RAID 5?" gives it away: http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt

And it ends: "Conclusion? For safety and performance favor RAID10 first, RAID3 second,RAID4 third, and RAID5 last!"

"You didn't look, apparently"? Come on, don't be a jerk. I had the same question. A well written piece doesn't force you to read the references for the actual thesis. How do I know that link on the side isn't one of the pointless arguments the author quoted?

Maybe it makes sense upon first read to someone with a lot of context, but as a home page of an initiative (movement? project?) it doesn't do a very good job of explaining what it's advocating for.

Battle Against Any Raid Five