I would be inclined to go for RAID10 in this instance, unless you needed the extra space offered by the single+RAID5 arrangement. You get the same guaranteed redundancy (any one drive can fail and the array will survive) and slightly better redundancy in worse cases (RAID10 can survive 4 of the 6 "two drives failed at once" scenarios), and don't have the write penalty often experienced with RAID5.
You are likely to have trouble booting off RAID10, either implemented as a traditional nested array (two RAID1s in a RAID0) or using Linux's recent all-in-one RAID10 driver as both LILO and GRUB expect to have all the information needed to boot on one drive which it may not be with RAID0 or 10 (or software RAID5 for that matter - it works in hardware as the boot loader only sees one drive and the controller deals with where the data it actually spread amongst the drives).
There is an easy way around this though: just have a small partition (128MB should be more than enough - you only need room for a few kernel images and associated initrd files) at the beginning of each of the drives and set these up as a RAID1 array which is mounted as
/boot. You just need to make sure that the boot loader is correctly installed on each drive, and all will work fine (once the kernel and initrd are loaded, they will cope with finding the main array and dealing with it properly).
The software RAID10 driver has a number of options for tweaking block layout that can bring further performance benefits depending on your I/O load pattern (see here for some simple benchmarks) though I'm not aware of any distributions that support this for of RAID 10 from install yet (only the more traditional nested arrangement). If you want to try the RAID10 driver, and your distro doesn't support it at install time, you could install the entire base system into a RAID1 array as described for /boot above and build the RAID10 array with the rest of the disk space once booted into that.