Yeah, no. I don't think it's fair to compare raid0 and raid5 for durability -- but ssds seem to have very low ure-rates, and you can now (almost) reasonably get 1tb ssds. Not sure about how long they can be realistically expected to last, though. Long enough (2-3 years) for when you'll probably want to replace those 14 1tb ssds in raid6 with a three 16 tb ssds in raid1 with one hot-spare?
You could get a bunch of 840 Evo drives, say, 7 of them, for around $3500, for a 6TB raid5 that would probably get at least a gigabyte a second even with parity calculations overhead.
Though ZFS and Btrfs solve the unreadable bit problem with extent checksums, so you really don't need to worry about mechanical disks, yet. You would need two URE's in the same block to kill the checksumming.
http://www.zdnet.com/has-raid5-stopped-working-7000019939/
And based on a sample size of 1, it looks like desktop 4tb drives still have an URE of 10^14:
http://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content/barracuda...
Then there's of course SSDs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eULFf6F5Ri8
Yeah, no. I don't think it's fair to compare raid0 and raid5 for durability -- but ssds seem to have very low ure-rates, and you can now (almost) reasonably get 1tb ssds. Not sure about how long they can be realistically expected to last, though. Long enough (2-3 years) for when you'll probably want to replace those 14 1tb ssds in raid6 with a three 16 tb ssds in raid1 with one hot-spare?