I did a search on this forum and found a few threads but nothing zeroing in on a ramification comparison of RAID1 vs. RAID5.
Found this on Google. It indicates RAID 5 = bad for writes-intensive DB but good for read-only DB like DB-Warehousing.
We do have a Bill-Of-Material app that does a lot (hundreds of thousands per day) of various flag and quantity updates as well as creating tiny log records, but most other activity is heavily indexed reporting and queries - some reports use temp tables.
As for DB growth issues, a 140GB volume would hold 10 more years of data with free space to spare.
In the new 8 bay server I'm considering, I'm thinking 4 RAID-1 volumes:
Vol1 = OS and all programs
Vol2 = Log files
Vol3 = User DB
Vol4 = System DBs (Master, Temp, etc), OS Swap, and .BAK files.
I could find a different server with 10 or 12 bays and go RAID 10 or RAID 0+1 for Vol3. Is that worth the trouble/expense? It would be nice to have a hot-spare, as well.