This paragraph however
Even using RAID5/6 with today’s disks is too risky due to bit failure rate on disks with high capacity: High risk to lose a RAID5 volume during rebuild.
Is fearmongering, based on faulty assumptions, and is factually and verifiably incorrect. If that “almost guaranteed rebuild failure” was the reality we would be seeing every other periodic scrub result in new bad sectors being discovered (those that would have otherwise cause the rebuild failure, had this not been a scrub). This is far from what actually happens.
Of course, if the array is setup, ran for 5 years and then scrubbed — of course there are expected to be bad sectors and when one disk removed — unrecoverable.
Nobody operates arrays this way. Data is scrubbed periodically, monthly, or even weekly. Bad sectors developing concurrently on multiple disks in the span of a month is a systemic failure, and otherwise the scrub would succeed, and therefore data following the scrub would be confirmed to be 100% healthy on all remaining disks, facilitating and ensuring successful rebuild.
Furthermore, more advanced file systems such as raidz1 (which is a lot like raid5 in many ways) provides for ways to replace the disk while maintaining access to the data on the disk being replaced, completely eliminating even this ridiculously unlikely hypothetical scenario that bad sectors appear a few seconds after successful scrub.
That article is being quoted and regurgitated all over the internet, and it’s a complete BS.