Which would you go with.. 8 drive raid 5 or 8 drive raid10..

Background.. server is a fileserver.. dual quad core xeon harpertown
2.5ghz cpus.. 10gb memory.. sataII enterprise 32mb cache 500gb
drives.. already have the OS as a mirror (2 drives).. 12 drive max
capacity.. 2 will be free..

This server will serve up 8 VM's running on VS 2005 R2 SP1.. we have 3
other servers, and 40 users or so..

I'll have one big VM with all the "remote" sql instances in it.. then
the program files ones in their own VM's (roles)...

Virtual Machine manager 2007 (SQL)
Config manager 2007 (SQL)
OCS 2007 (SQL)
OCS edge
Antivirus VM
Great Plains Dynamics 10 (SQL)
One DC/DNS/DHCP server VM

**One VM just with the remote sql instances (so thats 8 total VMs, 2
of which are lightweight ones though)..

I'm aware of the 5-30% hit for SQL virtualization and this should be
ok, given we only have 6 to a max of 40 simultaneous users (guessing
40 with OCS, but this may not even be true)..

i've heard its better to put some VMs/vhds on one array then others on
another (seperate spindles)..

I prefer easier management.. all in one if possible..

So given this mess...

Which is better:

Raid5 4 disk array AND Raid10 4 disk array (putting some VMs on each,
or all on the raid10 perhaps, while putting the shares for file
serving on the raid5 array)...

Or

Raid 5 8 disk array.. fileserving and all vm's inside here

or

Raid10 8 disk array.. file serving and vm's inside here (not as
failsafe as raid5.. i can only have 1 drive fail here correct?)

Any thoughts given our environmental situation? I'm leaning towards
one big raid5 array.. though the writes may be slower than the
raid10..

Cheers