But are the 5K RAW files the archives?
The beginning of the workflow are RAW files but it seems very unlikely the end of the workflow will be 5K RAW files. In a non-destructive editing context, the inputs are effectively an archive.
I suspect this will be for the primary volume, which will share both 5k and finished files (post edit content). Rather common in general for editors in my experience.
So it would need to be capable of high speed and reliability. As
wonderspark mentioned, the Reds don't have as long of a warranty, which generally speaking, tends to end up as a bit less reliable in the real world (they're also slower). No idea if the OP can keep up with a 36 mo replacement schedule for reliability purposes, even if capacity isn't an issue (money usually is, so equipment may be left in service longer that it should be).
Now there's been no mention of a proper RAID controller either, so the OP may actually intend to use nothing more than SATA cards and PM boxes, hence the mention of 10 rather than a parity based level.
In such a case, the speed will be throttled due to the card/s (tend to use less than 1x PCIe lane per SATA port) & PM chips, so the Reds might be an acceptable solution in such a configuration, particularly if this ends up only being as an archival pool.
But if it's for primary storage use (RAW + edited content), it wouldn't be up to the throughputs necessary.
So I suspect a proper RAID card will be needed, and if it's not a true 1:1 ratio for disks to ports (i.e. Areca's 188x series for example <8 ports native, SAS Expander on-board used past 8>, it's still capable of very high throughputs suitable for the task). Others, such as ATTO, still offer a true 1:1 on the card itself (SAS Expanders in the configuration would be external to the card <separate box or as part of the HDD enclosure>).
Perhaps a different workflow but seems likely the the RAW files will be effectively a WORM " write once read many" set of files. All the mutations will be done on intermediary forms and the output will be different even still.
Those intermediary and final files could be sent somewhere else.
This is possible, but I truly suspect that the storage pool will be used for both (RAW + edited files, intermediate through final), unless the OP states otherwise (usually the result of cost constraints).
For multiple 10K drives yes it is. If the multiple drive feed into a single connection (raid controller ) they the aggregated output is more. For smooth latency issues probably don't want 6GBps on one side of the controller and 3GBps on the other. There are times in the process of transferring data that the drive controllers are talking to the SATA controllers and the data on disk isn't the primary issue.
If it's using standard SATA ports (1:1 ratio), then throttling per disk won't be an issue. If on a RAID card, it won't be an issue either.
IF Port Multipliers are involved however, Yes there will be a significant reduction in speed (i.e. cheap controllers, assuming 2x, each on a 1x PCIe lane, then it would be good for no more than ~500MB/s). Which wouldn't be usable for the intended purpose.
But I'm giving the OP both the benefit of the doubt (that PM boxes won't be used), and time to respond to the thread for additional specifics.
The point of this particular post, is to give the OP something to consider that may not have been, so it's a worthwhile discussion IMHO.
😉
