Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

On my work PC, I'm running a RAID 1 currently.

I have an opportunity to upgrade my system and I'm wondering what is the best setup I can use.

I have 4 available hard drives and I definitely need fault-tolerance. I heard that RAID 10 is better than RAID 5.

Which configuration should I go with?

share|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Raid 10 is better than raid5

  • Raid 5 you can lose at most one disk
  • Raid 10 you can lose two disks as long as they're not from the same pair
  • Raid 10 is faster

Personally, I feel raid5 is a bit of a waste on 4 disks - it leaves you with the capacity of n-1 disks whereas raid10 gives you a capacity of n/2 disks. If you have 10 disks then there's a sigificant amount of space lost by choosing raid10, but with 4 disks it's not nearly as significant.

If you can afford to give up the extra space then go with raid 10.

share|improve this answer
Well, RAID 10 is certainly the "Rolls-Royce" of RAID configruations. Guess it really boils down to a) do I really feel I need it, and b) can I afford to buy that many disks... – marc_s Jul 15 '09 at 16:08
c) Does my RAID adapter support RAID10? – Russ Warren Jul 15 '09 at 16:12
"raid5 is a bit of a waste on 4 disks" - more than that: on an array this small, it's outright dangerous ( et al) when compared to RAID 10. – Piskvor May 2 '12 at 14:54

Raid 10 is a massive waste of space, and the benefits you might get in redundancy can be just as easily achieved with sort sort of offsite or cloud backup. Raid 5 is usually good enough since it's only really broken if two drives fail, which is extremely rare.

share|improve this answer
If you had 4 500gb disks, then you're looking at a total usable space of 1.5gb vs 1gb (for raid5 vs. raid10). That isn't really a massive waste of space for something that will be faster. – theotherreceive Jul 15 '09 at 16:10
I guess that depends how big your work's hardware budget is... – user1509 Jul 15 '09 at 16:14
"if two drives fail, which is extremely rare" - this is only rare if your disks are uncorrelated. Example: we bought a server with 4 disks, all were from the same batch, one failed after ~1000 hours, another a few hundred hours later. A bad batch, probably (manufacturer replaced them without any opposition at all, I suspect we weren't the only ones affected; the other two are still in service AFAIK). – Piskvor May 2 '12 at 14:59

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.