Correct. Plus, when rebuilding a failed RAID-5 disk, the system is engaging in mass calculations to rebuild that data from the “fingerprints” stored on the oth

Correct. Plus, when rebuilding a failed RAID-5 disk, the system is engaging in mass calculations to rebuild that data from the “fingerprints” stored on the other drives. Conversely, with RAID-10, we have mirrored drives (the 1 part of the RAID) which are then striped across the pairs that exist (the 0 part of the RAID). As such, IIRC rebuilds are a lot faster because it is a direct copy instead of a CPU-intensive rebuild of the data. Plus, you have (technically) a n-drive failure capability, where n = the number of mirrored pairs of drives. Provided that you don’t have more than one drive per pair fail, of course. So for a RAID-10 of four drives, where you have a stripe across two mirrored pairs of drives, you could have up to two drives fail without experiencing data loss, so long as each failed drive was from a different mirrored pair. Plus, RAID-10 is much faster than RAID-5, and much, much faster than RAID-6.