I’ve been learning the same. Though, I don’t get the sense that SATA is going out of style. I could be wrong though.
Comment on Looking to build my first PC in almost 30 years; What should I be on the look out for?
AngryishHumanoid@reddthat.com 4 months ago
I went through the same process myself a couple years ago, first PC build in a while. The biggest shock for me was finding out hard drives (SSD, HHD, etc) were outdated: its all about NVMe cards which look like a stick of RAM and plug directly on the motherboard.
CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 4 months ago
bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 4 months ago
You’re right, SATA isn’t going anywhere for a very long time. If you have a need for 4+ TB of total storage there is nothing at all wrong using HDDs or 2.5" SSDs.
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 4 months ago
sata would be used more for secondary storage or for systems setup as network attached storage. the nvme m. 2 formfactor for ssds is more convenient for users as its both smaller and does not require the user to wire 2 cables to use it.
CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 4 months ago
is that really a concern? 2 cables vs. pushing a card into the mobo?
felbane@lemmy.world 4 months ago
The other poster said it’s about convenience but that’s not really true. The claim to fame for NVMe drives is speed: While SATA SSDs can theoretically run at up to 500 MB/s, the latest NVMe drives can hit 7000+ MB/s.
It’s for this reason that you should pay attention to which NVMe drive you choose (if speed is what you’re after). SATA-based M.2 drives exist – and they run at SATA speeds – so if you see a cheap M.2 drive for sale it’s probably SATA and intended for bulk storage on laptops and SFF PCs without room for 2.5" drives. Double check the specs to be sure what you’re getting.
fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world 4 months ago
It frees up sata slots for your massive array of hard drives.
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 4 months ago
its more so the convenience factor. this also doesnt consider the hard drive mounting mechanism that youd spend time on as well.
AngryishHumanoid@reddthat.com 4 months ago
Not going out of style no, but not the new hotness.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 months ago
Unless you want a bunch of storage and modularity. The benefit to Sata is that it is much more flexible and Sata SSD’s are cheaper and can be put in a ZFS raid to increase maximum speeds.
CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I’ve gone back and forth on whether I need RAID locally. Giving up at least a third of your storage capacity (assuming RAID 5) for the off-chance that your hard drive dies in 3-4 years seems like a high price to pay. I had two drives fail in the lifespan of my current desktop. And I had enough warning from SMART that I could peel off the data before the drives bricked. I know I got lucky, but still…
felbane@lemmy.world 4 months ago
If you’re practicing 3-2-1 backups then you probably don’t need to bother with RAID.
I can hear the mechanical keyboards clacking; Hear me out: If you’re not committed to a regular backup strategy, RAID can be a good way to protect yourself against a sudden hard drive failure, at which point you can do an “oh shit” backup and reconsider your life choices. RAID does nothing else beyond that. If your data gets corrupted, the wrong bits will happily be synced to the mirror drives. If you get ransomwared, congratulations you now have two copies of your inaccessible encrypted data.
Skip the RAID and set up backups. It can be as simple as an external drive that you plug in once a week and run rsync, or you can pay for a service like backblaze that has a client to handle things, or you can set up a NAS that receives a nightly backup from your PC and then pushes a copy up to something like B2 or S3 glacier.
Nollij@sopuli.xyz 4 months ago
The only thing I’ll add is that RAID is redundancy. Its purpose is to prevent downtime, not data loss.
If you aren’t concerned with downtime, RAID is the wrong solution.
jjlinux@lemmy.ml 4 months ago
I have nothing to add here. Your assessment is spot on.
CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I know that this is the self-hosted community but I very much agree. The way I run my desktop is that I can, in most cases, lose my primary hard drive and I’ll survive. It won’t be pretty and I might have a few local repos that I haven’t synced in a while but overall, it ain’t bad.
Now, that doesn’t mean I don’t want my primary hard drive restored if I can do it. I’ve been lucky enough to be able to restore them from the drive. But if I can’t, the most I lose is some config files, which I should start to version control but I get lazy.
I can’t back up my media. It’s just too big. But yar.
My greatest fear is losing my porn collection. 😅 But not enough to RAID.
catloaf@lemm.ee 4 months ago
It’s not necessary. Just have a backup. If it’s something you can’t afford to lose.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 months ago
Just go with Raid-1 then