Please explain RAID use in terms of these articles where the emphasis is on two things:
RAID 5 is inherently dangerous because of the likelihood of data fail in large drives
RAID is not for backup
The RAID5 delusion ZDNet
RAIDfail Don t use RAID 5 on small arrays ZDNet
RAID 5 Data Recovery National Leaders - Affordable Recovery
Dangers of RAID 5 Array with SATA Drives xByteIT
The articles are a bit alarmist in nature. All this was hashed out in the 80's about RAID 5. And these aren't really arguments so much against RAID 5... it's more of an argument against using SATA disks. Also... I noticed the authors fail to state an alternative that doesn't have the same problem using SATA disks.
One article, for example, suggests the use of RAID 10. There's no such thing as "RAID 10". It's actually "RAID 1+0". RAID 1 + 0 means that if you have 4 disks (and you MUST have a minimum of four disks to do this) then you take disk 1 and mirror it to disk 2. You take disk 3 and mirror it to disk 4. These are essentially two volume "groups". You then stripe across the two groups putting all even blocks in the first group and all odd blocks in the second group.
E.g. the four disk contain:
[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Disk 1[/TD][TD]Disk 2[/TD][TD]Disk 3[/TD][TD]Disk 4[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]block 0[/TD][TD]block 0 mirror[/TD][TD]block 1[/TD][TD]block 1 mirror[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]block 2[/TD][TD]block 2 mirror[/TD][TD]block 3[/TD][TD]block 3 mirror[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]block 4[/TD][TD]block 4 mirror[/TD][TD]block 5[/TD][TD]block 5 mirror[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
If each drive is a 1TB drive, then you get a total of 2 TB of useable space.
Now lets suppose a disk fails... we'll pick disk 2. You're only marginally more protected than RAID 5 with a URE because if disk 1 fails or has a URE then you've still lost the whole filesystem.
Good hardware RAID controllers, however, will verify that their writes succeeded by doing a validation of the blocks as they are written (to ensure they can be read).
The GOOD part of the advice in the articles is that you shouldn't have just one copy of your data. If you care about it at all... then have AT LEAST one backup. I have TWO backups of everything and, in some cases, more.
A friend of mine from some years back worked for a data-recovery business. These are the guys who can recover the data from your hard drive even if it fails completely (smoke coming out of the box... controller is fried... motors won't work anymore... doesn't matter). They physically crack open the disk and remove the spindles, then re-mount them into a special machine, carefully align the heads, and get to work recovering your data. But when you use such a company, you're basically paying for a skilled worker for whatever their hourly rate is, plus benefits, plus overhead, plus profit... for the entire duration of the time they work on recovering your data. As he explained to me... there's basically no such thing as needing to have your hard drive recovered and having it NOT exceed $1000 for the service (and possibly substantially more.) Meanwhile there are some good inexpensive backup programs and an external hard drive can be as cheap as $50. This literally is the "ounce of prevention..." cliche.
I make a weekly "bootable" backup. This is basically a clone of my internal drive but if the internal drive ever does fail (and on a previous computer... it did just that) I literally had no downtime. I booted from the external bootable clone and kept on going while I placed an order for a replacement drive. Then cloned my data back onto the replacement drive when it arrived.
I also use the Apple "Time Machine" backups -- which backups anything that's changed every single hour of the data (after a week it collapses the hourly backups into daily backups to save space... and after about a month it condenses daily backups into weekly backups to save even more space... and it does this for as long as it can until it runs out of disk space and then purges the oldest backups automatically before starting new backups. This allows me to restore to almost any point in time.
Both backups saved my bacon at one point. One when my internal disk failed hard. The incremental saved me when I had a drive that didn't fail fast... it started corrupting blocks and I didn't know it. Those corrupt blocks were getting backed up. It was a few weeks before I tried to go back and open an image that I detected had been corrupted. So I went to restore it from my "cloned" drive and discovered that enough time had passed that the "clone" literally had a backup of the already-corrupted file (so that was useless). But since I had the Apple incremental backups... I just had to go back in time to find a point where the file was NOT corrupted to recover the data.
I STRONGLY advocate in favor of backups that are "just" backups (do NOT use your backup for extra storage space. That path leads to trouble.)