I ' m in the wrong business . I ' d handcount those ballots for half price if they asked nicely . <| sep |> IGN RizeDeposit Rockruff M 12 <| sep |> god shes cute <| sep |> dick just went from 0100 real quick . <| sep |> Here ' s what concerns me most you don ' t have any discussion justifying this based on prior load . The 10 TB of SSDs are argued for in the face of , We ' re currently using 7200 RPM drives an no one is complaining . Well , how much load are those drives currently under ? Then there ' s the next part where slamming 10 TB of SSD into a single machine creates a serious SPOF issue since it ' s The One True Server in the company , despite hosting a large number of VMs that don ' t have to be on the same physical machine . I just want great performance for my staff . RAID 10 SSDs will accomplish that for sure . I ' m sure this is unwise with SSDs . Now you ' re going from spinning disks with no complaints from users to a state of cutting your SSD utilization to 12 . RAID 10 is usually used to make spinning disks provide high seek throughput . One SSD will blow 4 x HDD in RAID 10 config out of the water on seek rate . The SSD cost is going to drive the price of this machine up , as will the high RAM . For comparison and granted , I order these things by the hundreds , 2 x E 52695 v 4 , 128 GB of RAM , 10 G net , and a chassis jammed with spinning disks will set me back about $ 1012 k . For what looks like a ballpark savings of $ 60 k and increased redundancy , split this into multiple chassis , do some workload analysis , and almost certainly go back to spinning drives . You ' re far better off with this workload spread across 3 machines with enough overhead to run it on just two . A SAN is more than likely part of the right solution for you .