M.2 SSDs
-
I haven't been hard drive shopping in over a year and I am curious when these little gems hit the market. I would also like to see if anybody has used them yet and hear what their thoughts are.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
I haven't been hard drive shopping in over a year and I am curious when these little gems hit the market. I would also like to see if anybody has used them yet and hear what their thoughts are.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
I haven't been hard drive shopping in over a year and I am curious when these little gems hit the market. I would also like to see if anybody has used them yet and hear what their thoughts are.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
If you have been using SATA SSD, you won't feel a lot of speedup with M.2 SSD, unless your workload consists of many sequential read/write which I highly doubt so. My home PC has 120GB SATA SSD(Primary) for OS and 500GB M.2 SSD(Secondary) for games and Visual Studio solutions/projects and a 1TB HDD to keep downloaded stuff.
-
I haven't been hard drive shopping in over a year and I am curious when these little gems hit the market. I would also like to see if anybody has used them yet and hear what their thoughts are.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
I got one with my latest portable. They are faster than many (most?) SSDs, but if you already use an SSD, you won't notice a major performance increase. I don't know about the power requirements; perhaps the manufacturers' websites will have some information. As far as I can see, their major advantage is to portable manufacturers - having a smaller form factor allows them to make slimmer devices.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
I got one with my latest portable. They are faster than many (most?) SSDs, but if you already use an SSD, you won't notice a major performance increase. I don't know about the power requirements; perhaps the manufacturers' websites will have some information. As far as I can see, their major advantage is to portable manufacturers - having a smaller form factor allows them to make slimmer devices.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
My systems drive is a Samsung 850 Pro, and really, I don't need anything faster!
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
There is always room for improvement; as far as I'm concerned, if non-volatile storage is not as fast as volatile storage, it is too slow. (And no, the solution isn't slowing down the volatile storage. :laugh: )
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
There is always room for improvement; as far as I'm concerned, if non-volatile storage is not as fast as volatile storage, it is too slow. (And no, the solution isn't slowing down the volatile storage. :laugh: )
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
There is always room for improvement; as far as I'm concerned, if non-volatile storage is not as fast as volatile storage, it is too slow. (And no, the solution isn't slowing down the volatile storage. :laugh: )
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
I have a slightly different viewpoint: if volatile storage is not as big as non-volatile storage, it is too small. I'll favour size over speed, any day.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I have a slightly different viewpoint: if volatile storage is not as big as non-volatile storage, it is too small. I'll favour size over speed, any day.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
If non-volatile storage were as fast as volatile storage, we could dispense completely with volatile storage. All computers would have a built-in "sleep mode" - all that would be needed would be to store the state of the CPU at the moment of shutdown, which is very fast. In fact, as the current CPU state is stored at every task switch, this implies that "sleep mode" would just be another task. OTOH, given that the working set of all the programs that you run simultaneously is much smaller than the entire non-volatile storage, I see no good reason for volatile storage to be of the same size as non-volatile storage. Also, writing/reading a few TB of volatile storage when entering/leaving "sleep mode" would make a computer extremely slow to sleep/wake.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
If non-volatile storage were as fast as volatile storage, we could dispense completely with volatile storage. All computers would have a built-in "sleep mode" - all that would be needed would be to store the state of the CPU at the moment of shutdown, which is very fast. In fact, as the current CPU state is stored at every task switch, this implies that "sleep mode" would just be another task. OTOH, given that the working set of all the programs that you run simultaneously is much smaller than the entire non-volatile storage, I see no good reason for volatile storage to be of the same size as non-volatile storage. Also, writing/reading a few TB of volatile storage when entering/leaving "sleep mode" would make a computer extremely slow to sleep/wake.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Sure, but the amount of data I can store is more important to me than the few milliseconds of access time to be gained -- particularly on laptops, where there isn't always space for a second drive, so smaller drives cause lag, anyway.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I have a slightly different viewpoint: if volatile storage is not as big as non-volatile storage, it is too small. I'll favour size over speed, any day.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
I'll favour size over speed, any day.
That's what she said.
-
I haven't been hard drive shopping in over a year and I am curious when these little gems hit the market. I would also like to see if anybody has used them yet and hear what their thoughts are.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
OK, I finally got my system up and running. I've got an Asus Z170 motherboard with an Intel i7-6700K CPU. The M.2 drive is a Samsung 960EVO 500GB PCIe NVMe. Holy shit this thing is elephanting fast! As far as sequential reads go, it really is 5x faster than a normal SSD. I'm getting read rates of 2.9GB/sec, compared to 511MG/sec for a SATA SSD, and 1.8GB/sec write. The 960 PRO version is even faster! Do a little homework on the M.2, NVMe specifications and then get a motherboard with it's M.2 connectors on the PCIe bus and make sure they give you 4 PCIe lanes for transfers. That'll give you the fastest transfer rate possible today.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject
Click this: Asking questions is a skill. Seriously, do it.
Dave Kreskowiak -
OK, I finally got my system up and running. I've got an Asus Z170 motherboard with an Intel i7-6700K CPU. The M.2 drive is a Samsung 960EVO 500GB PCIe NVMe. Holy shit this thing is elephanting fast! As far as sequential reads go, it really is 5x faster than a normal SSD. I'm getting read rates of 2.9GB/sec, compared to 511MG/sec for a SATA SSD, and 1.8GB/sec write. The 960 PRO version is even faster! Do a little homework on the M.2, NVMe specifications and then get a motherboard with it's M.2 connectors on the PCIe bus and make sure they give you 4 PCIe lanes for transfers. That'll give you the fastest transfer rate possible today.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject
Click this: Asking questions is a skill. Seriously, do it.
Dave Kreskowiak -
Almost 3 gigs a second!? That's fast. Is that with a single hard drive or a raid configuration?
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
That's a single drive. You can RAID them together if you've got the capability of having more than one M.2 drive on the motherboard or in expansion slots. Keep in mind that each PCIe connected drive is going to use either 2 or 4 PCIe lanes and your motherboard chipset only gives you a limited number of extra lanes to play with. If you're going to add multiple video cards, those are going eat up the extra lanes before you get around to adding more M.2 drives.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject
Click this: Asking questions is a skill. Seriously, do it.
Dave Kreskowiak -
That's a single drive. You can RAID them together if you've got the capability of having more than one M.2 drive on the motherboard or in expansion slots. Keep in mind that each PCIe connected drive is going to use either 2 or 4 PCIe lanes and your motherboard chipset only gives you a limited number of extra lanes to play with. If you're going to add multiple video cards, those are going eat up the extra lanes before you get around to adding more M.2 drives.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject
Click this: Asking questions is a skill. Seriously, do it.
Dave KreskowiakGood to know. I don't think I will need that kind of power on my home rig yet (the games I play stress the CPU more then the GPU) but it might be very useful for building data application sandboxes with multiple containers/virtual machines on a development box.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
Good to know. I don't think I will need that kind of power on my home rig yet (the games I play stress the CPU more then the GPU) but it might be very useful for building data application sandboxes with multiple containers/virtual machines on a development box.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
It'll do very well on an NVMe drive. At work, I've got a machine dedicated as a virtual host on my desk with 24GB of RAM and a 1TB SATA SSD. I can run 4 machines simultaneously with a little degradation in speed on them compared to running Windows directly on the host. Swap out that SATA SSD with an NMVe drive and you could probably run 5 machines simultaneously without any degradation in speed.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject
Click this: Asking questions is a skill. Seriously, do it.
Dave Kreskowiak -
It'll do very well on an NVMe drive. At work, I've got a machine dedicated as a virtual host on my desk with 24GB of RAM and a 1TB SATA SSD. I can run 4 machines simultaneously with a little degradation in speed on them compared to running Windows directly on the host. Swap out that SATA SSD with an NMVe drive and you could probably run 5 machines simultaneously without any degradation in speed.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject
Click this: Asking questions is a skill. Seriously, do it.
Dave KreskowiakHmm, the wheels are turning. You could make one nice little physical MS SQL database server with a couple of those and a mini ITX motherboard and server tower. With just one PCIe slot and no need for graphics you could put the Log and Temp files on two M.2 sticks in the PCI slot, data goes in a hot-swapable Raid 5 SATA SSD x4 array, with C: and backups on plain old spinning disks. It's not data-center grade but it would be quite respectable for under $800.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016