"news.tele.dk" writes:
So what youre saying is: "The speed of SCSI disks is more than 6 times that
of SATA".

You're being overcharged for the SCSI disks....

But there are significant differences between SCSI and SATA in both
performance and reliability. They're not intrinsic to the interface,
rather to the cost structure of each.

SATA disks typically have less error checking internally than SCSI,
increasing the likelihood of undetected errors. Not a big deal if
you're working with 1 disk; more serious when you have 10 and
mission-critical data.

Some SATA disks don't have enough RAM to store the whole sector flaw
map at once. Random access across those disks can waste a whole
(extra) disk rotation to read the flaw map for a track. The drive
will cache some of these, and this works fine for home use, but in a
database environment this can be a 2x performance hit.

SCSI and FibreChannel disks, at this point, are engineered for
reliability, because the market buying them are customers who care
about that. SATA is engineered for low cost, period.

Anton