@SW-User the cost is still, years into it, so high and the speed increase is not proportional. Also, in my opinion when considering other data pathway bottlenecks in computer architecture, that speed incrrase becomes an even more moot point.

@shaelan What is your opinion about power consumption in both cases? HDD's power consumption is comparatively higher. Would it be preferred over SSD if you are maintaining huge database servers that consumes a lot of power?

I don't know how the ratio of installation cost to running cost would be here. I don't have any empirical data in hand to throw any idea in.

@SW-User Hard drives are basically running small electric motors and additional mechanics to operate the read-write heads when needed. Most consumer and ommercial installations use power management at the operating system layer which spins down the hard drives when they are not in use and conserves power through doing so.

It is unlikely to see savings of 600 times the cost on power bill because of using solid state versus mechanical data storage.

Database is seldom under continuous read/write load, unless it is enterprise-level and even then there are mechanisms in place like memory caching to mitigate the delay that using a hard drive instead of memory takes.

This is something people may not take into account initially; a computer's RAM already stores DB data in solid-state after it has been fetched from the hard drive. Yes the initial fetch may be expensive in time and theoretically speaking in power consumption as compared to solid state but database servers have plenty of RAM and are set up to aggressively store data there, even preemptively, to mitigate this.

Says the one who spends millions of hours over here talking about spandex, cross dressing and butt plugs ? What is it? Regrets for dropping out of school, or dissapointed that I was talking about spin disk and not spandex? @patkaren1717

What do you use HDD for ? @SW-User

@SW-User storage

Not for potheads. @TheCoolestCat