I rather have this eBOX-R5
Five DRIVE RAID5:
http://www.datoptic.com/cgi-bin/web.cgi?product=eBOX-R5&detail=yes

There is no confusion the article was changed after I posted.

No... if you read carefully, he says 230MBps... big 'B', meaning bytes. 230MB/s seems a reasonable clip to me. (Admittedly, I think we're used to seeing megabits as "Mbps" and megabytes as "MB/s", so I can understand the confusion.)

raid 5 IS AMOUNG fASTEST & vISTA jUST CANN'T TAKE IT.Only along Route 66 can any 6 number exist, especially RAID, Mappless terrritory as it dosn't exist. Yet, Now as edges smooth in on 7, Wow, Could Mainboard take RAID 5 on 6 TB of Files, Especially GAME files? Call It AirCraft Carrier or At Least Atomic Bomb. drashek

No RAID 6 leaves only 1 & 10 as safe levels to use. RAID 5 is quite dangerous, the chance for dual failure and total loss is too great.

That said, implementing RAID 6 makes only sense with 5 or more drives, 6-12 is optimal.

230Mbps? So it is slower than a single sata 2 connection?