I'm not trying to be rude by saying this, but that article is crap.... Its pretty much the guys opinion that because drives are cheap you should never used raid 5. Then he goes on to compare a 3 disk raid 5 array to a 4 disk raid 10 array and doesn't give ANY details.
Yes, raid 10 is faster and could have more than a single drive fault tolerance depending on the drive that fails. For my setup specifically, If I wanted 6TB from raid 10, I would have needed 6 drives. I couldn't do that without buying an expensive controller card. (None of the 3 intel based motherboards I have allow a 6 disk raid setup even though they have 6 ports.)
I get 6TB from only 4 drives in raid 5 which works in my system and allows me to have another drive for the OS or whatever. That was the biggest deciding factor for me. I chose raid to have some fault tolerance and easy manageability since I use WHS and the 2011 didn't include drive extender.
To the OP, I hope you did your research on raid before deciding to implement it. If not, then I suggest you do. Also, don't think of using it as a backup solution because that's not what its for. Also, keep in mind, if you go with raid 5 for example, you cant easily change it after. If you have 6 TB of data on there, you will need to find another 6tb of space to move it to, before you do anything to the raid array.