Your current disk setup is OK. SSD's are not beneficial, only expensive for editing. You will not see any performance gain from an SSD.
Thanks for your quick reply. I'm glad to hear that I've got it set right for my hobby centered setup.
Also, I just read again, today, in Engadget, that an SSD can really speed up video editing. They were quoting a new SSD that was getting 1.4Gbs per sec read/write speeds. That might speed up file transfers, but would it also speed up timeline renders? Would it speed up transcoding? Just curious to hear what you think as Engadget, which I enjoy, usually uses SSD speeds and video editing in the same breath.
They must be talking about this setup: http://www.ocztechnology.com/aboutocz/press/2010/369
You can easily install 2 of these. They are only around $ 9,000 per piece.
For $ 18,000 I think you can easily build a better storage solution using 4G fibre and 24 disks that will increase your storage capacity 7-fold and cost less and will be faster.
SSD's are good for low energy consumption, for random reads and for high I/O rates. They are not good at sequential reads/writes and that is what is needed for NLE work. There have been extensive tests done with PR timelines by Bill Gehrke and he has not found any advantage in performance, actually the contrary.
At prices per GB of € 2.50 for SSD's versus € 0.07 for conventional hard disks the performance difference must be way better and capacities must increase enormously while SSD prices must be lowered by at least 80% to make it attractive.
I still have to read the EndGadget article (can you post a link?), but I suppose they do not know much about video editing. I'll let you know what I think about the article.