<i>&gt;Only if you use two drives per mirror; RAID10&#x27;s worst-case matches RAID6&#x27;s when using three disks per mirror.</i><p>That&#x27;s not a proper comparison as you are now using more disks in the RAID10 array than the RAID6 to get the same space. If you&#x27;re willing to have 6 disks to get the space of 2 you could use an array with 3 parity disks (what ZFS calls Z3) and now you can fail any 3 disks just like RAID10 and you&#x27;ve only used 5 disks instead of 6. If you have the option for 4 parity disks (I don&#x27;t think ZFS provides a Z4 level) you could fail any 4 drives of 6 and get the space of 2, so 1 better than RAID10. N-Parity setups are strictly more redundant than RAID10 for the same number of disks and required capacity.<p><i>&gt;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).</i><p>This makes no sense to me. I mix and match vendors in RAID6 arrays just fine and it lowers the correlation of failures between disks just as well. In fact parity RAID is again strictly better at this as well. Since the redundancy is across the whole array instead of split into clusters whenever you add more drives from different manufacturers you&#x27;re adding that redundancy to the whole array. With RAID10 if you have 3 drives per mirror your maximum redundancy before losing data is 3 manufacturers.<p><i>&gt;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.</i><p>Yeah, performance is the real advantage of RAID10 as I mentioned and indeed that performance can be important during rebuilds so it has some durability implications.