Hacker News Reader

Comment by crote | Hacker News Reader

The thing is, what's the market for them?

If you care even remotely about speed, you'll get an NVMe drive. If you're a data hoarder who wants to connect 50 drives, you'll go for spinning rust. Enterprise will go for U.3.

So what's left? An upgrade for grandma's 15-year-old desktop? A borderline-scammy pre-built machine where the listed spec is "1TB SSD" and they used the absolute cheapest drive they can find? Maybe a boot drive for some VM host?

View on HN

Cheaper, sturdier, and more easily swappable than NVME while still being far faster than spinning discs. I use them basically as independent cartridges, this one's work, that one's a couple TB of raw video files plus the associated editor project, that one has games and movies. I can confidently travel with 3-4 unprotected in my bag.

There's probably a similar cost usb-c solution these days, and I use a usb adapter if I'm not at my desktop, but in general I like the format.

Did that for a while until I invested in a NAS... at that point those early SSDs became drives for my RPi projects, which worked well enough until I gave all my RPi hardware away earlier this year... those 12+yo SSD drives still running without issue.

Where do you add more storage after you've used your 1-2 nvme slots and the m.2?

I would think an SSD is going to be better than a spinning disc even with the limits of sata if you want to archive things or work with larger data or whatever

PCIE expansion card with m2 slots?

(SSDs are "fine", just playing devil's advocate.)

pcie expansion cards? SATA isn’t free and takes away from having potentially more PCIE lanes, so the only real difference here is the connector

Counterpoint: who needs that much fast storage?

4 M.2 NVMe drives is quite doable, and you can put 8TB drives in each. There are very few people who need more than 32TB of fast data access, who aren't going to invest in enterprise hardware instead.

Pre-hype, for bulk storage SSDs are around $70/TB, whereas spinning drives are around $17/TB. Are you really willing to pay that much more for slightly higher speeds on that once-per-month access to archived data?

In reality you're probably going to end up with a 4TB NVMe drive or two for working data, and a bunch of 20TB+ spinning drives for your data archive.

You can actually get a decent 4TB USB-C drive from Samsung. For most home users those are fast and big enough. If you get a mac, the SSD is soldered on the main board typically. And you can get up to 8TB now. That's a trend that some other laptop builders are probably following. There's no need for separate SATA drives anymore except for a shrinking group of enthusiast home builders.

I have a couple of 2TB USB-C SSDs. I haven't bought a separate SATA drive in well over a decade. My last home built PC broke around 2013.

Only SATA made it common for motherboards or adapters to support more than 2-4 hard drives. We're back to what we used to do before SATA: when you're out of space you replace the smallest drive with something larger.

There are SATA SSD enclosures for M.2 drives. Those are cheap enough now that granny can still upgrade her old PC on the cheap.

Link? An adapter allowing a M.2 SATA SSD to be used in a 2.5" SATA enclosure is cheap and dead simple: just needs a 5V to 3.3V regulator. But that doesn't help. Connecting a M.2 NVMe SSD to a SATA host port would be much more exotic, and I don't recall ever hearing about someone producing the silicon necessary to make that work.

> Maybe a boot drive for some VM host?

Actually that's a really common use - I've bought a half dozen or so Dell rack mount servers in the last 5 years or so, and work with folks who buy orders of magnitude more, and we all spec RAID0 SATA boot drives. If SATA goes away, I think you'll find low-capacity SAS drives filling that niche.

I highly doubt you'll find M.2 drives filling that niche, either. 2.5" drives can be replaced without opening the machine, too, which is a major win - every time you pull the machine out on its rails and pop the top is another opportunity for cables to come out or other things to go wrong.

Anything later than and including x4x has M.2 BOSS support and in 2026 you shouldn't buy anything lower than 14th gen. But yes, cheap SSDs serve well as the ESXi boot drives.

M.2 boot drives for servers have been popular for years. There's a whole product segment of server boot drives that are relatively low capacity, sometimes even using the consumer form factor (80mm long instead of 110mm) but still including power loss protection. Marvell even made a hardware RAID0/1 controller for NVMe specifically to handle this use case. Nobody's adding a SAS HBA to a server that didn't already need one, and nobody's making any cheap low-port-count SAS HBAs.

I bought 2 of the 870 QVOs a few years ago and put them in software RAID 0 for my steam library. They cost significantly less per TB than the M.2 drives at the time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com