I like many other readers out there get frustrated that no sites like Toms hardware site have not done reliability tests on SATA RAID Vs SCSI RAID. RAID is like insurance, it’s only as good as then time in when you need it. I know that SATA II is suppose to be more reliable than SATA, but why don't HP etc release servers with SATA II rather than still sticking to SATA? I have read many articles indicating that if a hard disk fails due to a power spike etc, then SATA RAID will fall over where as SCSI will work. Isn't this the main cause of a hard drive failing? I'm not really impressed that SATA RAID is just as fast as SCSI because disk speed access for a business opening 100KB-1MB documents is not an issue yet there are a number of articles on sites like toms hardware discussing speed, but no one tackles reliability. I'm after the reliable system and there is no data/statistics out there in guiding people to make the right decisions. Can you please fix this Tom?
There is no doubting that SCSI is generally better quality and reliablity than IDE or SATA, and also SCSI drives generally score a lot higher with i/o requests, which is prefered in a server environment.
So SATA is geared for home users or entry servers. Simple.
If you want or need to spend 2x or more for your drive subsystem, go ahead.