> Heck, you can get near petabyte storage arrays now from several top vendors, > and guess what? Most of them are using SATA. I believe Netapp is using > SATA drives in some of their systems, and anybody who knows Netapp knows they > don't release anything unless it's solid, and won't damage their reputation.
They work around reliability issues in their code. Hint, look how much free space you really get per drive. > > In short, the SCSI is better theory may be true for a short while longer, > but is more likely just the result of inertia, and bad experiencese with > cheap crappy IDE drives on crappy controllers, not quality components. Your sample is hardly representative for the industry and making these blanket statements makes you sound uninformed. You had a good experience with some drives under a certain load; good for you! I fail to see how this represents, lets say, banks, insurance companies, hospitals etc. SATA is very adequate, and sometimes preferred, for certain applications but certainly not for 24x7x365 operation. There are other reasons why SAS/SCSI is more expensive than SATA/PATA besides reliability. I won't rehash them again.
