this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
411 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
59985 readers
2153 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The reason is transfer speeds. SATA is slow, M.2 is a direct PCIe link. And SSDs can saturate it, at least in bursts. Doubling the capacity of a 2.5" SSD is going to double its price as you need twice as many chips, there's not really a market for 500 buck SATA SSDs, you're looking for U.2 / U.3 ones. Yes, they're quite a bit more expensive per TB but look at the difference in TBW to consumer SSDs.
If you're a consumer and want a data grave, buy spinning platters. Or even a tape drive. You neither want, nor need, a high-capacity SSD.
Also you can always RAID them up.
For the context of bulk consumer storage (or even SOHO NAS) that's irrelevant, though, because people are already happily using spinning mechanical 3.5" hard drives for this purpose, and they're all already SATA. Therefore there's no logical reason to worry about the physical size or slower write speeds of packing a bunch of flash chips into the same sized enclosure for those particular use cases.
There are reasons a big old SSD would be suitable for this. Silence, reliability, no spin up delay, resistance to outside mechanical forces, etc.
Sure it makes sense: Pretty much noone, but you, is going to buy them, and stocking shelves and warehouses with product costs money. All that unmoved stock would make them more expensive, making even more people not buy them. It's inefficient.