CORSAIR Unveils Its Fastest Ever SSD Range

[Nenu]

Yep, each M.2 slot uses up the PCIE-E lanes for 2 SATA ports!
They need to mount flat to the motherbaord without impacting other heat sensitive components.
There arent many places to fit one without extending the motherboard size.
Its not a good place to mount one anyway, they get hot and only get cooled on one surface which restricts overall airflow too.

PCI-E cards are better as they dont steal SATA ports, but you have to balance that with lanes to gfx cards.
Some backup software doesnt like PCI-E card drivers.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Yep, each M.2 slot uses up the PCIE-E lanes for 2 SATA ports!
They need to mount flat to the motherbaord without impacting other heat sensitive components.
There arent many places to fit one without extending the motherboard size.
Its not a good place to mount one anyway, they get hot and only get cooled on one surface which restricts overall airflow too.

PCI-E cards are better as they dont steal SATA ports, but you have to balance that with lanes to gfx cards.
Some backup software doesnt like PCI-E card drivers.

I'm not concerned with losing SATA ports.

In my current rig I don't use a single sata port. In fact I just disabled the sata controller in BIOS. I have one PCIe Intel 750 SSD, and all my storage is on my NAS.

Haven't had more than one drive (an SSD) in any of my builds since 2010.

 

[Gigus Fire]

I'm not concerned with losing SATA ports.

In my current rig I don't use a single sata port. In fact I just disabled the sata controller in BIOS. I have one PCIe Intel 750 SSD, and all my storage is on my NAS.

Haven't had more than one drive (an SSD) in any of my builds since 2010.

Well if you don't mind slower performance, then a nas is a good choice if you're willing to spend for another system.
My nas is limited by my gigabit network. It maxes out at around 80 megs/sec. A standard hdd directly attached is around 150 megs/sec so it's about 2x faster.
10gbit networks are still very expensive.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Well if you don't mind slower performance, then a nas is a good choice if you're willing to spend for another system.
My nas is limited by my gigabit network. It maxes out at around 80 megs/sec. A standard hdd directly attached is around 150 megs/sec so it's about 2x faster.
10gbit networks are still very expensive.

You can actually get good deals on 10gig components used on eBay. For a while I was running a direct fiber between my desktop and my NAS with Brocade adapters on either end, but one of the adapters died.

I'm looking around for alternative 10gig solutions now (I'd prefer copper, it's more robust, but also more expensive) but the truth is I don't find I need large sequential transfer speeds to my NAS. It's just for file storage. Very little I do would actually benefit from faster speeds.

The side benefit of the NAS being that it is easily accessible on every system on the network (without having to use file sharing on your main system which stinks) is huge too.

 

[Gigus Fire]

You can actually get good deals on 10gig components used on eBay. For a while I was running a direct fiber between my desktop and my NAS with Brocade adapters on either end, but one of the adapters died.

I'm looking around for alternative 10gig solutions now (I'd prefer copper, it's more robust, but also more expensive) but the truth is I don't find I need large sequential transfer speeds to my NAS. It's just for file storage. Very little I do would actually vendor form faster speeds.

The side benefit of the NAS being easily accessible u every system on the network (without having to use file sharing on your main system which stinks) is huge too.

I have a nas. Basically a mini atx setup running a amd 6800k downclocked to 2.0ghz running ubuntu 14.04. It has 7 3tb drives running in a raidz2. It allows me to have ~15tb of storage across all my systems and works fairly well, but i use it for a quasi backup since 2 drives can die and be replaced before any data is lost.
It's great for what it's worth, but it was fairly expensive to build (7 drives 4 years ago still cost a pretty penny) and it's performance isn't quite that great that i'd want to give up the locally attached drives.
On a 10gbit network it might be fast enough, but on a gigabit it won't work.
I got a nice network setup so my router is automatically vpned to my parents router so they can see the nas like it's on the local network. But again, it's for backup mainly, definitely not fast enough through the internet for it to work as a drive replacement.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I have a nas. Basically a mini atx setup running a amd 6800k downclocked to 2.0ghz running ubuntu 14.04. It has 7 3tb drives running in a raidz2. It allows me to have ~15tb of storage across all my systems and works fairly well, but i use it for a quasi backup since 2 drives can die and be replaced before any data is lost.
It's great for what it's worth, but it was fairly expensive to build (7 drives 4 years ago still cost a pretty penny) and it's performance isn't quite that great that i'd want to give up the locally attached drives.
On a 10gbit network it might be fast enough, but on a gigabit it won't work.
I got a nice network setup so my router is automatically vpned to my parents router so they can see the nas like it's on the local network. But again, it's for backup mainly, definitely not fast enough through the internet for it to work as a drive replacement.

Yeah, I have a Norco RPC-4216 case with a dual hexacore Xeon supermicro board and 192GB of ram in my basement. I use it to run VM's and host my NAS, which is also ZFS on Linux. It is a setup with 12 4TB hard drives, configured in two RAIDz2 vdev's with 6 disks in each. It also has a mirrored set of SSD's for the ZIL, and two 512GB SSD's as cache devices.

It works great. I find that my SSD is all I need locally though. I dump all my files on the NAS, and haven't found that even while restricted to network speeds, it is more than fast enough for file storage stuff. Only time I notice it being a little slow is when I'm dumping large files to it, but I don't do that very often. all my major large file type downloads are usually handled directly by the server, and I only access the content from my desktop.


Here's an old pic from back when I was still running VMWare's ESXi. These days it's on Proxmox.