SATA vs ATA?

An anonymous reader asks: "I have a client that needs a server with quite a bit of storage, reasonable level of reliability and redundancy and all for as cheap as possible. In other words they need a server with a RAID array using a number or large hard drives. Since SCSI is still more expensive than ATA (or SATA), I'm looking to using either an ATA or a SATA RAID controller from Promise Technologies. While I had initially was planning on using SATA drives, I have read some material recently to make me rethink that decision and stick with ATA drives. What kind of experiences (good and bad) have people had with SATA drives as compared to ATA drives, especially in a server type environment?"

Comments

Re:Buy a RAID

[Twirlip of the Mists]

If you were to build a system that comprised 9 Hitachi 7200RPM 400GB drives, you would acheive 100GB more storage space for 3,600$ plus the cost of the server it was hosted in.

Plus the power supplies (dual redundant) and cooling systems (dual redundant) and controllers (dual redundant) and the case to house it all!

That's an awful lot of stuff to just hand-wave away. Not to mention the time and labor required to build and support the fucking thing.

But inexpensive compared to a self-built solution it is NOT.

The point here is that a "self-built solution" (what is that, one that builds itself?) will be cheaper, but not by nearly as much as you estimated. The only way to get it down to a price that approaches the figures you made up (let's be honest here) is to slash key features and capabilities until you get to the target price point.

Sorry, but in a large storage system redundant power supplies are not an option. Redundant fans are not an option. Redundant controllers are certainly not an option.