Mark, you said:
"SSDs have reached that cusp point where they can be significantly more cost effective than rotating media."
No doubt SSDs are fast, but "cost effective" implies more performance bang for the buck. I've not seen a single instance where this claim stands up to scrutiny.
1) In SPC-1C/E benchmarks, SSD (STEC) was not cheaper in cost/IOP than spinning disk, it was more expensive.
2) In TPC-H, Kickfire's HDD based data warehouse appliance delivers almost 2X better cost/performance than the fastest SSD based systems from HP and Dell, and in a smaller physical package.
3) IN TPC-C, Oracle had to pull a $5million benchmark-special software price cut to deliver an SSD result that was cost competitive with HDD. Back-out the pricing trickery, and the SSD based storage was several million dollars more than an HDD system.
Have you seen an SSD system that has actually shown itself to be "significantly more cost effective"?