SSD drives have a terribly high failure rate. However even with mission critical financial data they are still worthy upgrades. I've replaced SCSI arrays with 14 drives that had my dB partitioned with various tables here, log files there and all sorts or performance configurations with a mirrored pair of SATA SSDs and gained a 20x-60x increase in speed. I don't even remember how much that huge array cost when it was purchased but $1000 on a pair of SSDs and my system is TWENTY times as fast. For data integrity my log files are stored on a traditional mirrored pair of HDs and everything is backed up every 4 hours to a SAN. Even in the unlikely event that both SSDs die at the same time, because the Tlog is on a traditional HD, I think MS-SQL's built in resilience will protect me.

I will say that when a traditional HD fails usually blocks start going bad and you start to see data corruption gradually over a period of time but when an SSD fails, its like you unplugged a USB stick.

I run a micro business and after weighing the pros and cons I think you would be a fool not to at least test the SSDs. Every time you hear your HD click, and they click constantly, its because they stopped transferring data for 10ms to reposition the head in a different location. SSDs have no moving parts and so the read/write queues almost never go above 0!!!!

The only place i would be concerned about having SSDs is if they told me after boarding an aircraft for a transatlantic flight that it was now running on SSDs. But even then fly-by-wire aircrafts have quadruple redundancy on their computer and power systems so you would still be more likely to die from pilot error.

Leon