Raid 0 - because with vSeries you rely on someone else to handle the backend raid calculations, if this were truly Raid 0 no one would touch it, so lets; no pretend it's a choice.
Raid 4 - Single parity with a dedicated parity drive, oh my would Netapp even recommend this after all of those years banging on about dual parity. Even so it's not scalable for large aggregates, so pretty much never used these days, again not really a choice.
All of them mirrored - Is a bit of misdirection, what you mean is replicated to another array so lets not pretend this is something to do with Raid, it's another bit of software.
Again more relative marketing statements - 2% performance hit vs what ? Netapp's Raid 4 implementation or other vendors Raid 5 or Raid 1 ? and where is that hit being taken, backend disk or at the CPU with additional parity calculations or both ?
"If you want performance with less Data Management Overhead, compare with the NetApp E-Series"
What ? this article is all about FAS & Ontaps new go faster stripes and its ability to compete with All Flash Arrays. Yet your telling us that a traditional dual controller block storage box (E-Series/ex LSI), that isn't even a particularly fast flash platform still outperforms FAS ?