Originally Posted by DirectorC
Fair enough, but I don't see how RAID1 is more fault tolerant. Both RAID1 and RAID5 can function with a missing drive, both will need to be rebuilt if a drive goes bad. RAID1 appears to be more expensive per GB and not deliver the striping performance of RAID5... that is all my argument is.
RAID 1 is not slower than RAID 5, the only reason why RAID 5 _can_ give higher speeds is due to the higher number of disks. Though with every disk added the reliability goes down. Apart from RAID 1 being more expensive per GB your arguments are incorrect.