it's much more optimal (space wise and not to "waste" SSD capacity) to just have the SAS partitioned.
i actually have on one of my clusters a configuration very similar to that (just with SAS - SATA not SSD)
you can see the i'm using the SAS (in your case its an SSD) on one node. and partitioned SATA used for data on the other node while the root partition is spread on both.
CLUSTER::*> aggr show -fields aggregate,node,diskcount
aggregate diskcount node
----------------------- --------- ----------
NODE1_SATA_01 22 NODE1
NODE1_SATA_ROOT 10 NODE1
NODE2_SAS_01 68 NODE2
NODE2_SATA_ROOT 10 NODE2
4 entries were displayed.
CLUSTER::> storage disk show -fields data-owner,root-owner,container-name -container-type shared
disk container-name data-owner root-owner
------ ---------------------------------------- --------------- ----------
1.0.0 NODE2_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE2
1.0.1 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE1_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE1
1.0.2 NODE2_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE2
1.0.3 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE1_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE1
1.0.4 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE2_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE2
1.0.5 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE1_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE1
1.0.6 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE2_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE2
1.0.7 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE1_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE1
1.0.8 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE2_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE2
1.0.9 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE1_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE1
1.0.10 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE2_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE2
1.0.11 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE1_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE1
1.0.12 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE2_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE2
1.0.13 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE1_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE1
1.0.14 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE2_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE2
1.0.15 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE1_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE1
1.0.16 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE2_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE2
1.0.17 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE1_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE1
1.0.18 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE2_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE2
1.0.19 NODE1_SATA_01, NODE1_SATA_ROOT NODE1 NODE1
1.0.20 NODE1_SATA_01 NODE1 NODE2
1.0.21 NODE1_SATA_01 NODE1 NODE1
1.0.22 NODE1_SATA_01 NODE1 NODE2
1.0.23 NODE1_SATA_01 NODE1 NODE1
24 entries were displayed.
>