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

Most of the time technical articles about different RAID levels mostly about how redundant they are, how fast on read/write etc.

But I can't find information about would a disk in a certain RAID live longer than on other RAID level. (ignoring the capacity, speed and redundancy factors)

Especially I am interested in RAID 5 vs RAID 10.

RAID 5 allows us redundancy when one disk fail RAID 10 allows us at least 1 disk fail redundancy.

But if we have two 100% servers (except different raid levels) wit the same data, the same load etc. (again, despite the capacity factor)

so, in which, RAID disks would "live" longer?

for RAID 5, a RAID controller would calculate parity on any write/read, correct? this is penalty.

for RAID 10 it would mirror and stripe

It is all about Hardware RAID if it matters!

share|improve this question
Simplifying the question. In which RAID (5 or 10) disks are busy more? if they are working in 100% identical environment (the same operations) – bakytn Feb 15 '12 at 5:35
The consensus these days is that RAID 10 is superior in many regards to RAID 5 in terms of performance, reliability, and cost effectiveness. – MDT Guy Jan 21 '14 at 22:36
up vote 3 down vote accepted

There's almost no evidence that disk activity level has any effect on disk life at all. So it won't matter.

share|improve this answer
Really? Disk durability depends on what, then? – bakytn Feb 15 '12 at 16:38
Luck, temperature, and how many hours a day the disk is spinning. (See the Google study, among other sources.) – David Schwartz Feb 15 '12 at 16:54

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.