This isn't necessarily the case. Just look at Google. They were famous for using linux clusters based on IDE drives. And it's not like their search engine was any slower than Yahoo, AltaVista, Lycos, msn, etc.While the SATA interface by itself should be quite appealing for the server market and other serious storage needs, all the drives that are currently using that standard are optimised for desktop use, not server-like accesses. This fact relegates the SATA drives (at least those currently available) to second role and for low traffic - low I/O applications.
CougTek said:Also surprising is the declaration of once-SR-forum-member John Paulsen, stating that SATA drives' defect rate is lower than traditional ATA drives. It contradicts what I've heard before. Most of the problems of SATA are attribuated to the low maturity level of the interface and of its implementation on many SATA drive models. So to read that SATA drives, despite their relative enfancy, show superior relability rates is, well, intriguing.
CougTek said:So to read that SATA drives, despite their relative enfancy, show superior relability rates is, well, intriguing.