On 12/12/2012 12:16 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Matt Garman<matthew.garman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >I agree with all that. Problem is, there is a higher risk of storage >> >failure with RAID-10 compared to RAID-6. > Does someone have the real odds here? I think the big risks are > always that you have unnoticed bad sectors on the remaining > mirror/parity drive when you lose a disk or that you keep running long > enough to develop them before replacing it. > a decent raid system does periodic 'scrubs' where in the background (when otherwise idle), it reads all the disks and verifies the raid. any marginal sectors should get detected and remapped at this point.