I should&#x27;ve clarified that RAID1 is the <i>absolute</i> best if data integrity is your sole concern.  Regardless...<p>&gt; RAID10 is strictly worse than RAID6 for redundancy.<p>Only if you use two drives per mirror; RAID10&#x27;s worst-case matches RAID6&#x27;s when using three disks per mirror.<p>RAID6 also lacks a &quot;best case&quot; that&#x27;s distinct from its worst case.  You lose three disks, you&#x27;re hosed, period.  You lose three disks in a RAID10 (even one with two disks per mirror), it&#x27;s much more probable that your data will be intact.  You can mitigate this further by using a bigger array (RAID10 total failure probability is affected by array size, unlike RAID6) or by using different vendors for each disk in the mirrors (example: each mirror has one Intel and one Samsung SSD of the same capacity) - which, while having some performance and capacity implications, actually mitigates the &quot;oh no I bought a bad batch of hard drives and now my RAID is kaput&quot; failure case (unlike with RAID6, where mixing&#x2F;matching vendors won&#x27;t help you unless you mix&#x2F;match them for every disk).<p>There are also some recoverability benefits of RAID10 v. RAID6; notably, recovering from a fault in RAID6 requires recomputing parity, while no such thing is necessary for RAID10.  This mitigates the &quot;oh no my array took too long to fix itself and now my RAID is kaput&quot; failure case.