Let me explain our usage of the ATA trays that we used. Basically our CS and Tech departments "hoteled" drives. Meaning, people shared a machine but each had their own drive. So these drives would be swapped out A LOT. MUCH more than normal for a server application.
Now you're gonna ask why we used hot swappable. Basically we decided to spend the extra money on this, because we certainly didn't need these drives to be hot swapable, figuring we might get more mileage out of them in the long run (e.g. find a real use for the hot-swap capability some time in the future). So these drives got swapped as much as three times a day. Which, admittedly, is MUCH more than you'll do in a normal server.
The problem that arose from this was that after use the rails would become sloppy and alignment became a problem.
So, in reflecting upon my experience I would have to say that those trays may be just fine for their normal intended use as my experience was a bit unlike what they were probably designed for.
With all that said. I'm still a firm believer in SCSI drives for server application. Why? Durability. SCSI drives always have a higher MTBF than their ATA/IDE counterparts. SCSI drives also cost a lot more as well. The real reason that the SCSI drives cost more is because they are manufactured better and with better parts than their ATA/IDE counterparts. ATA/IDE is really a consumer grade product and SCSI is a commercial grade product.
I know, I know. Someone here is going to have a story about AN ATA/IDE drive that's lasted for years without failure. Anecdotal evidence. I have seen, and I know we have had SCSI drives in production boxes for many years without failure. Much more so than any ATA/IDE drives. The norm for SCSI drives is that you need to replace the drive because it doesn't meet your storage needs anymore.
So it all depends on your tolerance for failure and your budget. If you're willing to live with more risk of failure and the server isn't mission critical, then ATA is probably fine. If you are not willing to make these sacrifices then you need to look at a SCSI solution.