>Walter,
>
>Since we've agreed to disagree, I'll address only one of the points you made.
>
>>>In contrast, because SQL server is optimized and written for WinNT/2K it communicates directly (via the API) with the hardware and specifically states that in the instance of the controller caching the writes to get another controller where this can be disableed.

>What in the above do you doubt is true? That SQL Server is optimized for WinNT/2K? Or the statement about the drive controller? Do you realize that in event of failed media in a RAID array that it can re-construct the failed disk on the fly, or do you dount that too?

The assumption that SQL-server does not suffer from latency. I can run SQL-server on my IDE drive. I don't see why a database server should care of there is a (bit) of latency. In an event of a crash, the transaction log should be used to recover. Whether all the bits are written to the media during the crash is not a major concern. It's only going to recover what is in the Transaction log.

Walter,