It's enough to make my inner geek cry with envy.

That is...










AMAZING!!!

An inverse ratio of practicality to performance, but fun to watch.

I really want an affordable 80GB (128GB) SSD for my next system in a year's time.

Right now I live perfectly fine on less than 80GB space, a limit I set myself mostly for backup reasons (so the drive images don't take ages to build).

120GB super-fast disk speed would be worth as much to me as two conventional TB storage, especially if it turns out that SSDs can be far better at predicting failures (they should, since they can measure the amount of reserve sectors used after some time).

Grinning ear to ear.

Runs off to check lottery numbers from last night...

I'm thinking that maybe one of these as C: for the OS, then a huge 2TB conventional SATA2 drive as D: for data storage might work well too.

Yup, I reckon we'll be seeing pre-builts in this sort of configuration soon.

Fun to watch, but I don't want to try to troubleshoot such a beast.

My predicition is;

In the not to distant future your storage space will also be your RAM. i.e., no more need for prefetching to RAM, just whip everything directly out of your "HDD" and into the CPU(s). That should speed things up even more but will need some major OS/hardware redesigning.

If you just want it for the OS (and some applications), 16 or 8GB Drives are affordable today. 16GB should do for Windows and Photoshop, for example.

But for me the question is about reliability too - the 2TB conventional drive still has too many moving parts IMHO.

That's why you put 2 of them in RAID 1, or 3 of them in RAID 5.

Raid is nice, but only until your Raid controller fails, and the replacement controller not able to read the drive structure. With R1 that's less risky I suppose, but one of the reasons for my dislike of R5.