RAID5 v RAID10

From what I can tell RAID 5 is better for redundancy where as RAID10 or RAID 1+0 has better performance.

I know with RAID5 if a drive fails then the sever will still boot... Which is what I think is the great need.

What I'm not sure about is, is that the case with RAID10, if a drive fails and it has the OS installed on that RAID10 configuration will it still boot the OS?

Thanks 

This post is displayed on the Active Threads on the home page.  But I can't see in the forum... is this a bug?

Thanks for the reply.

Yes it is hardware based.  Would it not work if software based?

Software Raid 10?   Presuming the System is booting from a non-software raid partition (Since it has to load the raid partition) theoretically it should.

But since Raid SATA and SAS controllers from Intel and Promise have gotten pretty expensive I wouldn't bother playing with it myself. 

Cool but hardware kicks better.   

Of course now that Terabyte drives are out, a pair of those mirrored should be interesting and nice a simple....