Something I am still trying to resolve in some ways. I think our conventional thinking about bigger SSDs probably comes from our HDD carryovers. If there are not spinning platters, nor a faster/slower sector map, why is there a need for really larger SSDs if they are only going to be striped and used as boot drive for the OS and to house applications? Do many folks run with 480GBs of OS an apps? Now, if one is also going to use them as fast data drives too, beyond just the OS, apps and maybe scratch, then I understand bigger is needed. It would seem that if these drives are that fast, a better option may be to mirror them instead of striping them, thus getting the benefit of instant back-up for whatever you were needing in case of a crash. In that case, a lot bigger would be better, if it retains the speeds.
In something like a Mac Pro, where you have some serious internal capacity available, I would thing filling bays with 10k rpm drives would do quite well, and at a lot less cost, plus hold a lot more data. Or striped 1TB 7200rpm drives would go a long way for very fast storage also.
I get the need for bigger SSDs for use in something like notebooks, where storage is limited, but not sure I see all that much benefit in big boxes where you have tons of space and fire-breathing capabilities on other devices that are going to be significantly cheaper. (Sorry, must be my recession frugality/practicality taking over or something right now.
)LJ
