Comment by labawi

Theoretically, if you have a good RAID5, without serious wire-hole and similar issues, then it is strictly better than no RAID and worse than RAID5 and RAID1.

* All localized error are correctable, unless they overlap on different disks, or result in drive ejection. This precisely fixes UREs of non-raid drives.

* If a complete drive fails, then you have a chance of losing some data from the UREs / localized errors. This is approximately the same as if you used no RAID.

As for URE incidence rate - people use multi-TB drives without RAID, yet data loss does not seem prevalent. I'd say it depends .. a lot.

If you use a crappy RAID5, that ejects a drive on a drive partial/transient/read failure, then yes, it's bad, even worse than no RAID.

That being said, I have no idea whether a good RAID5 implementation is available, one that is well interfaced or integrated into filesystem.