Summary: Both should provide similar reliability of data. Sawtooth may more easily manage the volatility of the network addressing. In your situation the utility of a DLT is unclear.
Details: Hyperledger Sawtooth uses a Merkle Radix Tree to enforce state agreement. That means that when transactions are exchanged amongst those nodes, each node will check if it has reached the same internal database state as the other nodes. See https://sawtooth.hyperledger.org/docs/core/releases/latest/architecture/global_state.html
Quorum as a Go Ethereum fork has a similar mechanism. However that trie is split to represent public ethereum network state and whatever private state is being managed on the side chain.
According to Quorum's docs the endpoints must be known apriori. That may be difficult for your proposed network if the IP addresses change when the nodes gain and lose connectivity.https://github.com/jpmorganchase/quorum/wiki/Quorum-Overview
This will also be difficult for Sawtooth if all the addresses change. If at least one node remains consistent then the topology can be rebuilt dynamically. Sawtooth includes different protocol options including dynamic peer discovery.
If I'm interpreting your use case correctly, you are suggesting that blockchain nodes would feed their independent views of data into a centralized server. This would not be a good fit for blockchain.
The idea with blockchain is each of those independent nodes would gossip the transactions it has received to the other nodes so that ultimately they all have the same view of data.