Did you fall for M.2 meme? Or do you still stick with SATA?
M.2: no established and well tested, tried and true RAID systems
SATA: many kinds of RAID systems continuing the legacy of SCSI systems, often from the same manufacturers who had been tinkering with SCSI since the year 1984
Would you simply abandon all this knowledge and step for the unknown wtih M.2?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtu.be
twitter.com
shut up bro
>RAID
Literally the most meme technology of all time.
new thing bad
Back you /v/, you drooling retard.
ur an idiot
I don't know in what context the average person has a RAID setup, but no I do not care enough about M.2 speeds to upgrade, but next time I build a system I might as well get the newest technology.
Yep.
I embraced change and strive for a culture of growth, so I tried out M.2, and it works completely fine without a single hiccup on any computer I've installed it on (4 now).
What's holding you back?
you outed yourself in the title, brainlet. m.2 is a form factor, not an interface. m.2 drives are either SATA or NVMe. NVMe is straight up many many times faster than SATA, too fast even to the point most motherboards will bottleneck NVMe drives by only having max x4 PCIE 3.0 lanes available per drive.
That said, 99% of people do not need an NVMe drive.
>RAID
What exactly is the advantage for me as a private person? Who the FUCK uses RAID, at all?
its a meme
he reposts this same misunderstanding each time
well shit don't i have egg on my face now, fuck
>RAID
Just use LVM stripe you literal brainlet
>Did you fall for M.2 meme? Or do you still stick with SATA?
There are plenty of SATA M.2 cards. I use NVMe at work and it works well.
>M.2: no established and well tested, tried and true RAID systems
M.2 isn't designed to be hot-swapped. There are however plenty of hot-swappable NVMe SSDs in U.2, Intel "Ruler" (EDSFF) and NF1 (M.3) form factors. Hardware RAID controllers are considered to be a poor choice for storage nowadays, with scalable storage such as Ceph being preferred, and ZFS being preferred as a more robust alternative to traditional RAID. That said, Broadcom makes NVMe hardware RAID controllers.
>SATA: many kinds of RAID systems continuing the legacy of SCSI systems, often from the same manufacturers who had been tinkering with SCSI since the year 1984
SATA is based on ATA, not SCSI.
>SATA is based on ATA, not SCSI
Irrelevant, the manufacturers are same
For example 3WARE started with SCSI systems and then moved to SATA when SCSI seemed all but dead, they released their last and best stuff (hardware RAID controllers for SATA) 5 years ago I think
(but 3WARE is no longer on the game these days)
M.2 is a form factor, retard.
My dad uses raid 1 because he thinks one drive might fail. It once actually did, and he replaced it. Everything is backed up monthly now by me but my dad is still happy that it has RAID
>0
>drive failed
It was Seagate HDD
There is no reason for a consumer to use RAID.
>Yeah bro, let me just put 2-3 SATA SSDs in RAID 0 to match the speed of a single NVMe drive. Surely this "tried and true" RAID system will keep your data safe.
M.2 is a form factor. NVMe is what you're thinking of. SATA can be M.2 too.
Nvme has less components and driver overhead. Also, how much bandwidth do you need, if you saturate 4GB/s?
I've been watching m.2, it's far more interesting with NVME around.
I'll be going for a 1TB drive sometime in the future, to upgrade my 90GB one from a few years back.
No. M.2 is connection of the form factor as well. replacing mSATA. they are comparable.
NVME is the controller & protocol for much faster speeds via the nands
I just got this.
And I felt no difference from my 850 pro.
I only got the 970 pro to increase capacity.
>getting the 970 pro when the 970 evo plus is right about to come out
Yikes
my laptop has an extra mini pcie slot, I guess intended for a second wifi card? what should I put into it now? I don't think they make mSATA hard drives anymore
>970 evo plus
$130 for 500 gb TLC nand
Well, I paid $140 usd for 500gb of MLC nand.
>99% of people do not need an NVMe drive
That's so fucking true, yes, it gives you a tingle to see those CrystalMark results but on a daily basis if you're a regular user you're not gonna get major difference, and also we better not talk about temperature, durability and the much, much, higher chance of failure than the SSDs
>falling for the Samsung meme
Should have got an HP EX950 or AdataSX8200 Pro instead
is this true?
I use raid 5 in a nas box to store company data, precious photos and porn, lots of porn
M.2 NVME is just straight up PCIe. PCIe SSD's have been around almost as long as SATA SSD's. Technophobes like you are the sort who hemmed and hawed at SSD's when they first came to the market 10 years ago.
Well, it's close to being marginally faster than SATA(3) SSDs. It's not necessarily bad, but not worth it.
youtu.be
youtu.be
Fuck off. I have a 850pro.
Going to buy a 970pro soon.
>HP EX950 or AdataSX8200 Pro
Nah, I bought the 970 pro for 140 usd.
Endurance is much higher than those TLC ssds.
>t. el monstrosidad
why do we let non-americans on Jow Forums?
/g loves cables
makes their empty lives better
About to get an pcie m.3 ssd.
The big advantage I see for M2 at this point in time is its size for really small computers that are needed to be more powerful than a smartphone but not as bulky as a full sized computer. That and for small form PCs.
256GB NVMe SSD for the system. Literary same cost per GB as a proper SATA SSD, no reason not to populate the slot on your motherboard.
Four 512GB SATA SSDs in RAID0 I got for a huge discount, just for local "muh games" storage.
OP meant NVMe, because he was comparing it to SATA.
You can have both SATA and NVMe in a M.2 slot.
>m.2 vs sata
the absolute state of Jow Forums
it's on the internet so it must be
>M.2: no established and well tested, tried and true RAID systems
In fact the same thing as always: Linux md/dm RAID.
Never use shit-tier proprietary onboard RAID or other solutions like that. They often perform like trash. But even if they don't, you have no clue if they have good tools to handle problems, work on the next mainboard if yours breaks, and they probably have nowhere near the features of md/dm RAID.
Apart from that, uh, you don't tend to need RAID on PCIe SSD or even SATA SSD. For home use and even mid-sized enterprises, It's usually more useful to put them in a buffer cache in front of an array, and just run the array on HDDs.
why is there no mention of NVMe you nigger shit?
I use raid 6 at home for nas
>bought 970 evo
>see this thread
>check back my order to change it
>it's already been shipped
WTF bros why didn't you tell me...........
>256GB NVMe SSD for the system. Literary same cost per GB as a proper SATA SSD, no reason not to populate the slot on your motherboard.
this
The best configuration is cheap 240gb nvme then cheap 1tb SATA3 ssd.
Both are dirt cheap, it's like $200 total for both of those things now.
All I know is these stick SSDs are pricier than the square SSDs and basically performance wise there's no difference for me.
Damn goy
What will I do with a 240gb nvmeme? That's a lot of space for C drive.
>thinking RAID with regular SATA SSD's is a competing technology to NVME
>thinking RAID is not an enterprises class technology to increase system availability
>Thinking RAID will not destroy the low latency of SSD's
>Thinking his shitty chipset raid functionality is comparable to a dedicated professional RAID controller.
Program, cache and temp
Plus 240GB ones are cheaper per GB plus have better performance
Where I live the 970 evo 250gb costs exactly half as much as a 1tb 860 evo
my C drive never takes more than 35gb anyway
Yes
And it's because the programs aren't designed with such high transfer speeds in mind. So they can't make full use of what's available. Maybe in 10 years NVME will start to be worth having over SATA, but right now it literally doesn't matter. You're paying extra money for no performance gain at all.
My ultrabook only has M2.
1 TB SATA SSD or 500 GB NVMe
Mmmm...
Why the hell do you need RAID on an SSD?
DIMM
A 240GB Kingston TLC NVMe SSD costs like €3 more here than a 256GB Crucial MX500 TLC 2.5" SATA one of the same size, while a 512GB MX500 costs less than twice of the NVMe one.
I think the point about "bigger ones are cheaper per GB" meant NVMe SSDs in their own category, like a 120GB one being more than half the price than a 240GB one.
Aren't Kingston SSDs garbage?
Sometimes no, sometimes yes.
Kingston is considered garbage because they routinely change the NAND and controllers for a particular model to cheaper parts, usually a few months after reviews.
If you buy a Kingston drive within the first 3 months of release and it has good reviews, you should be fine.
Don't buy any Kingston drive that has been on the market for more than 3 months (or better yet, don't buy them at all)
Yeah I'll jus get a 1tb 860 evo, it's the best value.
Depends on the series of SSDs. A shitty Kingston can still be faster even after the cache is full than the fastest SATA SSD, with the added benefit of more IOPS.
You can download official specifications on their website that include NAND and controller information for a particular model.
If you buy one and it turns out to be something else than stated there, feel free to sue them or return the drive.
>suing chinks
Good luck.
Kingston is a US company you dip.
Load times in my games. The MMO I play took 90 seconds from desktop to playable game on a single 970 Pro but 70 seconds after I put them in RAID0.
RAID0 for local storage for things like games is perfectly acceptable, specially if you can get better storage/value with additional speed out of it.
Just put a m.2 on my z97 system, lost 2 sata ports and i shit myself thinking a HDD died. Everything is fine now, works great.
It's not really about load times. That's the same retarded shit like "SSDs are for better boot times" 10 years ago.
It's about general thruput, how well it handles under heavy disk access for example. Do these tests again while having several instances of small/big files copying. There's no way around the NVMe meme, price is no longer an issue, it uses less power / generates less heat and every motherboard already has a slot for at least one, while providing the same performance in the worst case scenario than SATA does at it's best. M.2. and U.2 are the future, like it or not.
It's like people here are sometimes actively against progress, yet at the same time they fall for dumb Nvidia/Intel jewing memes.
nvme vs sata is the new hdd vs ssd
>M.2 vs. SATA
>A form factor vs. An interface
Your next line will be "I was only pretending to be retarded"
You can still put your vidya and shit on your c:, steam can install to multiple drives. Commonly played games on nvme, lesser games on 1tb ssd.
The idea is you've shifted from ssd/hdd to nvme/ssd
what does raid have to do with the interface or form factor? you can even do raid over usb sticks.
will there be a virus which overheats nvme Samsung drives to the point of explodig?
lets see: virus overheats nvme, laptop in general starts to get heatenings, then CPU takes all cores into maximum, thoughj one thread is deserved to keeping nvme constantly at 100% instead of loading only CPU, the battery may eventually explode thus bringing great victory to virus author
Sure, but only if you use GNU/Linux. Since nothing else will give you that low level of access.
Boot and application launch times were drastically improved when I moved from an 860 to a 970 NVMe.
Remember kids, m.2 is a form factor.
i just wanted to meme up my boot times
Bullshit, crucial mx500 sata is (even the m.2) is £120 for 1tb, there is a crucial NVME drive for the same cost that's qlc and therefore trash. There's no parity yet on tlc stuff.
What are you even trying to say? Did you even read the whole thread before posting?
>m.2 NVMe drive
boot drive, some vidya, and scratch disk for editing
>SATA3 SSD
more vidya, essential programs, media storage to be edited
>SATA3 HDD
mass storage, edited media, etc
>M.2: no established and well tested, tried and true RAID systems
Well... Sort of. For giggles I tried to run an NVME raid 0 setup since my motherboard had full x4 bandwidth from both NVME slots. I've been running it for about 4 months now and can confirm that it was a -stupid- idea.
NVME raid is a little bit goofy. My boot times are very random (Sometimes 15 seconds, sometimes two minutes. No rhyme or reason why) and software raid is -very- delicate in general. If a brownout hit my area my partition would be toast but I'm too damned lazy to buy a UPS so I'm playing russian roulette with 2 bullets in the gun. But hey, At least the numbers look good.
If you had a riser card, zero fucks to give and more money than brains, A raid 10 NVME array could be work well for video editing but you'd never notice it for anything else.
I fell for the M.2. SATA meme.
>>m.2 NVMe drive
>boot drive, programs, cache/temp/scratch disk
>>SATA3 SSD
>vidiya and local storage
>>SATA3 HDD
>mass storage in the file server in the other room
ftfy