Not sure what the take away is from their experience.

Is it

1. Consumer grade/crappy SSDs are still reliable enough at scale and rarely fail that it is easier to manage occasional failures ?

2. The cost of engineering effort to keep things together with crappy ssds failing often is less compared to the expensive enterprise grade hardware ?

Or is it something else ?

Once you build a distributed system that's large, it has to tolerate routine node failures.

Once you have a fault tolerant system, and some idea of failure rates, you can then ask "is it worth having X units of less reliable hardware or Y units of more reliable hardware? How many will still be running after a year?"

You then find out that buying a few more cheap nodes compensates completely for the lower reliability.

One more step, and it will conjoin with Erlang's "Let it crash" approach.

This thread seems overly complex given that an engineer tasked with designing a RAID storage to replace an unplanned haberdashery would probably start with looking up what the requested acronym stands for.