No, that's the fault. You can't talk about just one aspect of performance (like latency). The buffer memory size and the interface are playing a great role on that. The rpms are good to measure the drive itself but the drive itself it's useless without the computer. And for the computer what really count is the interface.
The performance is a statistic of overall aspects (interface, rpms, memory buffer, etc.) on drives as well as on computers. And again you can't just talk about one particular application like databases. It depends. And we're talking about the general performance of SCSI vs ATA/SATA drives.
The conclusion is that Alex and webslicer sentence (SCSI is much faster than SATA) is basically wrong. An engineer would agree with me (like we see on what they produce in the real world -again, modern servers are ATA based-).
Max
The one with Mac OS X Server 10.4 :)
The performance is a statistic of overall aspects (interface, rpms, memory buffer, etc.) on drives as well as on computers. And again you can't just talk about one particular application like databases. It depends. And we're talking about the general performance of SCSI vs ATA/SATA drives.
The conclusion is that Alex and webslicer sentence (SCSI is much faster than SATA) is basically wrong. An engineer would agree with me (like we see on what they produce in the real world -again, modern servers are ATA based-).
Max
The one with Mac OS X Server 10.4 :)
