No it wouldn't. A RAID5 array with 4 spindles should be faster than a RAID1 + 0 array with 4 spindles. Essentially, with the RAID1 + 0 array, data would be reading or writing to two drives simultaneously, while the RAID5 array will be reading or writing the same amount of data to 3 drives, with a corresponding increase in speed of nearly 50%, all else being equal. My 8 spindle RAID6 array can read and write data in excess of 450 MB/sec, which is far, far faster than any of the individual drives can be read or written. See my response above. Implementing a regular data sync, rather than mirroring represents a better example of not putting all the eggs in one basket. I have never been able to discern any loss in PQ using the default options in VRD. I've looked quite closely. Not just then. It's up to four times faster transferring to a THD and 3 times faster transferring to an S3. The space savings is also significant from a cost savings, both in terms of the investment in drives and the reduced power costs. Twenty drives use considerably less power than 30. Of course I was especially glad of the decreased storage size when the flooding in Thailand caused the prices of hard drives to skyrocket. Recoding to h.264 prevented me from having to buy new drives when 3T spindles were over $350 a pop.