>>52905203 Ideal setup: > m.2 NVMe boot/applications drive > 7200 rpm SATA HDD for >=4TB local store of shit like Steam games or whatever > NAS with raid5/6 level redundacy for media and documents, using HDDs of course > offsite automated backup
until SSDs have less than a 2x mark-up compared to HDDs and hiopt comparable capacities, HDDs aren't going anywhere. 5.25" bays and optical drives can go DIAF though.
>>52905203 I just want mobos to support PCIe storage by design so we can get rid of those sata and power cables once and for all. Optical bays and SATA drives are causing 90% of unecessary cable spaghetti in cases. Optical drives are being phased out slowly (thank god) I hope SATA drives follow soon.
>>52905352 Heatsinks don't make a difference in an average consumer use case scenario. Most consumers will not come close to hitting the thermal limits of the NANDs. That being said, the current way board makers are putting M.2s onto their boards is fucking retarded. Just mount them vertically so that the M.2 slot faces out like a PCIe slot or on its side so that you can mount two M.2s in the same spot as one.
>>52905732 There is no large market for it yet, so there isn't such a strong demand for it. Until adoption rates get higher, M.2 will be more expensive simply because it's a niche product. It's why external hard drives are cheaper than bare internal drives despite having the same drive inside and with more features.
>>52906058 The problem with m.2 SATA is with most motherboards I've seen, if you use m.2 SATA you end up losing either all of your SATA Express slots or a couple of your regular SATA slots. It's a crappy tradeoff that nobody wants to make if they plan on having a bunch of drives.
>>52906385 m.2 is an add-in card form factor as shown in OP's pic in the SATA cradle adapter.
it supports both SATA and direct PCIe/NVMe protocols, but it's really just about being physically small.
for single-user PCs, the PCIe/NVMe protocol has a higher maximum throughput than SATA, but you'll never notice it because bottlenecks lie elsewhere. (NIC, other src/dest drives for copying, waiting on CPU to process data, ...)
m.2 with NVMe might be appreciably better once 10 gigabit networking becomes standard, although SATA 3.2 theoretically does 16Gb/s though nobody appears to care.
>>52906442 m.2 is a pretty shaky proposition in servers. 950 pro is thermally throttled even in linear reads, although it would still be bottlenecked by 10GbE.
The Xeon-D platform seems almost ideal for high-end NAS, but it would be nice to see more that 6 SATA ports and maybe a u.2 port or two added, so you could drop a 40GbE card in the PCIe slot and still come close to saturating the network.
>>52906442 If you're planning on running Linux or Unix, wait another year. The current kernel driver has a serious NVMe bug that will lock up the drive during use. I've had it happen multiple times (and consequently just pulled the damn m.2 out).
>>52909625 For SATA M.2s, it actually makes more sense to use an adapter like the one in OP's post rather than the native slot on supported motherboards because of this bullshit >>52906145 Even if it's a SATA M.2, your mobo will still turn off both SATA ports on the SATA Express port because it's a hard switch.
They do make this >http://www.amazon.com/SATA-NGFF-Dual-Port-Enclosure/dp/B00P9O2528 where you can RAID two SATA M.2s and hook them up to a single SATA port.
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2015-December/003461.html If I remember right that was the one. I found one thread that stated it was because the driver uses virtual DMA addresses or something to that effect.
This M.2 formfactor is really confusing me and the first time i heard of it was a few weeks ago.
My motherboard is 2 years old so i guess there's no way for me to natively connect one of these. Also they are a lot faster than SATA3 ssd's right? But are they faster than PCI-E ssd? Also if i don't have M.2 support in my mobo, should i get a PCI-E ssd card or a PCI-E m2 adapter card?
>>52910563 >My motherboard is 2 years old so i guess there's no way for me to natively connect one of these No, but if you have one graphics card and don't mind dropping its bandwidth to x8, you can plop an M.2 PCIe adapter card into the next available x16 slot. It might even be a better option than most native slots due to better cooling from the airflow across your board. >Also they are a lot faster than SATA3 ssd's right Look up "M-key" and "M+B-Key". All M-Key M.2s are faster than SATA SSDs. Most M+B-Key M.2s are SATA, so they operate at the same speed. as their SATA counterpart. It goes without saying that you should use an M-key M.2 with a PCIe adapter card rather than the SATA M+B-key M.2s
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.