Your writes will be limited to the speed of the conventional drive, so if your workload is mostly reads, then you will see a significant benefit.
Though, if your workload is mostly reads, you'd probably see the same benefit for a lot less $$$ by putting more RAM in your server...

At the moment SSD's are excellent when you need high I/O from a few disks up to say a few TB however if you look at enterprise storage solutions of 10's or even 1000's of TBytes you are still looking at spinning media with large cache front ends (BTW I am talking about $20k up to many millions of dollars storage area networks).
Well, what you're usually looking at is a storage system with multiple types and speeds of disks that automatically moves data through the tiers depending on the frequency and type of access. SSDs will form one of these tiers. If the storage system is any good, it will also let you manually pin or hint specific subsets of your data so that they are always held on the fastest tier (ie: SSDs).
Since the _active_ subset of data even in quite large organisations is generally relatively small, a few hundred GB or a few TB of flash will often give 90%+ of the real-life performance that a pure flash array would.

This is being driven primarily by increasing levels of virtualisation, which turns everything into a largely random-write disk load, pretty much the worst case scenario for regular old hard disks.

I never said constraining free will was negative, I suggested that removing the bad consequences of bad choices negates the purpose of being able to make that choice in the first place.
A somewhat reasonable position to take for people whose bad choices impact only them.
Your implicit argument, however, is that there's no such thing as an innocent victim. This position is untenable.
I hold a person who has the ability to save someone from harm but refuses to do so in the highest contempt. I fail to see why a god should be held to a lower one.

Enforcing laws constrains free will. Thus, by the same logic cited above, what is the point of having them when constraining free will is implicitly negative ?

If God were to just turn around and stop us every time we make a wrong choice, then what on earth would the point be of giving us a free will?
From your logic can we conclude you are opposed to all laws, as well ?

How is blocking ad revenue from sites distributing content without the appropriate license "too much censorship"?
How should the determination of "appropriate licensing" be made ?
Based on the country the website is in ?
Based on the country the searcher is in ?
Based on the country the search engine is in ?

There's a lot more to vSphere than vMotion.
You can write custom scripts for ESXi to "accomplish what vCenter would do for VMware" as well, but by the time you did, you would have spent more on person time than you would have on just buying vSphere.

[...]or nothing for Hyper-V
Just a point that if you want feature equivalence with vSphere, Hyper-V is not free because you have to pay for all the management bits and pieces that go along with it.

Learn about the Laffer Curve. It's theoretically valid and verified by experience.
You mean someone has actually managed to put more than two numbers on a Laffer curve (0% and 100%) ? Do tell.

But there is nothing to stop you buying the parts from the local hardware store, and I never heard of anyone being prosecuted.

Of course, if the insurance company finds out your house burned down because of your dodgy electrical work, good luck making a claim.
If someone died in the fire, good luck in gaol.

In other news, "the world" recently found to consist of only the UK and Australia.

Reducing the BAC to 0.05 and implementing random breath testing has been very effective in reducing road deaths. We reduced the BAC limit to 0.05 in the 90's and this is why Australia has 5.7 deaths per 100,000 people (8 per 100,000 vehicles) and the US has 12.7 deaths per 100,000 people (15 per 100,000 vehicles). Because it sure as shit isn't because Australian's can drive.
For reference, Victoria introduced a 0.05 limit in 1966, NSW in 1980 and Qld in 1985. I'm not sure about the other states, but the only one I can imagine holding out until the '90s would have to be the NT.
It's interesting to hear older folks talk about drink driving in their youth, however. My father (now in his late 60s) worked in insurance and used to do a lot of driving in western Queensland. His habit after finishing his rural appointments was to buy a carton of beer and start the 2-3 hour drive home - he reckons most times he'd be 1/2 to 2/3 through it by the time he rolled into the driveway.
Of course, the roads were a lot emptier back then as well, which probably saved a lot of lives.

Anyone who drinks regularly is like not that impaired at those levels. If I am as impaired at 0.1 as you are are at 0.05 why can I not drive at 0.1?
Because laws aren't personalised.

The introduction of RBTs ("Random Breath Test" stations - basically a roadblock where large numbers of vehicles are stopped and drivers tested) in Australia led to a significant reduction in road fatalities.
Source.