The trouble with looking for general trends in the HDD -v- SSD debate is that there is a very wide range of performance available.

In the UK tests I referred to earlier, on 15 different SSDs there was a 3:1 performance ratio between the fastest and the slowest SSD when reading. There was a 7:1 performance ratio between the fastest and the slowest SSD when writing.

A plain (cheap) Toshiba 2.5" laptop HDD was quicker at writing than over one-quarter of the SSDs.

SSD parts that we don't even know how to measure properly (Memory controllers, Wear-levelling, Erasing NAND in blocks instead of pages, before writing) all made a difference and introduced unexpected latencies.

If you want to throw (or, more provocatively, waste) large amounts of money on your storage devices then a pair of Seagate Cheetah 15K.6 HDDs run as a RAID 0 array driven by an Adaptec 5445 SAS RAID controller blew everything out of the water, even the Intel X-25 Extreme SSD. Almost 300MB/sec. That's three times faster than the average SSD read rate. It's also four times faster than the average SSD write rate. By "average" in this context, is meant the SSD drive with middle-of-the-pack (Median) performance.

How much do you actually need this performance? How much are you willing to pay? Where does reliability and noise, never mind price, feature in your decision?

.

Oh yes, SSD will be mainstream real soon. I use an Intel X25 E as my main system's boot-drive, and it kills everything that dare called itself a storage medium. Somehow I feel a lot safer as well. Those old-school bad blocks are ridiculous.

Also, check this and look at the price-drops for these:

http://tweakers.net/ext/i/?ProduktID=223957

http://tweakers.net/ext/i/?ProduktID=224949

I assure you, its price-drop has begun, and it will not end anytime soon.

If you want to throw (or, more provocatively, waste) large amounts of money on your storage devices then a pair of Seagate Cheetah 15K.6 HDDs run as a RAID 0 array driven by an Adaptec 5445 SAS RAID controller blew everything out of the water

LOL, you seem to conveniently forget its noisy, vibrating, fragile, sensitive, hot and power-hungry aspects?

Edited February 6, 200917 yr by meowing

I deal with storage vendors as a part of my job- both rotating and memory based. That prediction has been debated for at least 2 years now when we gather in the pubs after a day of meetings. The conclusion- SSDs have their place, but they will not replace HDs anytime soon and certainly not for everybody.

I have a large pile of drives (of all kinds) on my lab bench, and while SSDs run quiet, they are not as cool as one would expect. Boots fast, and does not benefit from defragging. Until wear-averaging algorithms get better, I sure don't want to use them for a paging volume.