M.2 SSD on HP ML110 Server - Problems!

[amphiprion]

Hi,

I am fairly new to this, & we are trying to fit two Samsung 970 Pro's in a Raid 1 set-up on to an HP ML110 Gen 10 Server. But there are no M2 slots so we are having to use a riser kit which plugs in to a PCIe slot. Does anyone know whether this will allow the drives to operate via the PCIe bus, or does the fact that we (appear) to have to connect Sata leads to the cards mean that it will use the Sata bus & we will suffer significantly degraded performance?

Thanks in advance!

 

[USAFRet]

1. Booting from a drive in the PCIe slot may not work. You'll have to read the specific documentation on it.
I'd be very surprised if it did.

2. There is no adapter (yet) that will mate an NVMe drive and a SATA interface.

 

[androbourne]

I'm confused about your statement. If you are connecting via a riser kit to PCI then why would SATA play a factor here? Only two things that should be used is the riser kit which would transfer data via PCI and power....

As long as SATA is not being used. You shouldn't run into the SATA bottleneck.

But yes, if you are using SATA then with m.2 you will undoubtfully hit the SATA bottleneck, this is why m.2 is directly on the mobo and doesn't go through SATA connections...

 

[Rogue Leader]

I'm confused about your statement. If you are connecting via a riser kit to PCI then why would SATA play a factor here? Only two things that should be used is the riser kit which would transfer data via PCI and power....

As long as SATA is not being used. You shouldn't run into the SATA bottleneck.

But yes, if you are using SATA then with m.2 you will undoubtfully hit the SATA bottleneck, this is why m.2 is directly on the mobo and doesn't go through SATA connections...

This info is incorrect.

First off most likely the PCIe card is looking to draw external power through a SATA power connection, which is fine and has nothing to do with the SATA bus in the system.

Secondly M.2 Slots on motherboards can and are available in SATA. In fact when buying a motherboard you need to specifically look at the specs to see if the M.2 slot is SATA, PCIe, and then if PCIe if it supports NVMe.

Still wondering though the benefit of RAID 0 of 2 of the fastest drives available on a low clocked server. And as USAFRet says, that server may not boot from the PCIe slot, many do not. Just because you're using SATA power leads from the PSU does not mean it uses the SATA bus, being that they are PCIe drives its impossible actually.

 

[androbourne]

I'm confused about your statement. If you are connecting via a riser kit to PCI then why would SATA play a factor here? Only two things that should be used is the riser kit which would transfer data via PCI and power....

As long as SATA is not being used. You shouldn't run into the SATA bottleneck.

But yes, if you are using SATA then with m.2 you will undoubtfully hit the SATA bottleneck, this is why m.2 is directly on the mobo and doesn't go through SATA connections...

This info is incorrect.

First off most likely the PCIe card is looking to draw external power through a SATA power connection, which is fine and has nothing to do with the SATA bus in the system.

Secondly M.2 Slots on motherboards can and are available in SATA. In fact when buying a motherboard you need to specifically look at the specs to see if the M.2 slot is SATA, PCIe, and then if PCIe if it supports NVMe.

Still wondering though the benefit of RAID 0 of 2 of the fastest drives available on a low clocked server. And as USAFRet says, that server may not boot from the PCIe slot, many do not. Just because you're using SATA power leads from the PSU does not mean it uses the SATA bus, being that they are PCIe drives its impossible actually.

That is right. But as I stated the reason for having on board m.2 is to bypass the SATA bottleneck. Also having m.2 going via riser to PCI means data will be transferred via PCI. Which is also what I stated.

 

[Rogue Leader]

That is right. But as I stated the reason for having on board m.2 is to bypass the SATA bottleneck. Also having m.2 going via riser to PCI means data will be transferred via PCI. Which is also what I stated.

And again, there are plenty of on board m.2 slots that are SATA not PCIe. Many Laptops use this interface. So again your statement:

this is why m.2 is directly on the mobo and doesn't go through SATA connections...

Is not correct

 

[androbourne]

Thats great. He said riser to PCI and SATA which is why my first comment was to clarify exactly what type of m.2 he is using.

The most common m.2 are either on board or via pci lanes. Not via SATA because again, you hit the bottleneck which defeats the point of even using m.2 to start with.

 

[USAFRet]

Thats great. He said riser to PCI and SATA which is why my first comment was to clarify exactly what type of m.2 he is using.

The most common m.2 are either on board or via pci lanes. Not via SATA because again, you hit the bottleneck which defeats the point of even using m.2 to start with.

m.2 is simply the form factor.
Like 2.5" or 3.5"

m.2 drives can be had in either SATA III protocol or NVMe.
Some motherboard slots can take either or both.


SATA III m.2 drive:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820250090

NVMe m.2 drive:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820250084

 

[Rogue Leader]

Thats great. He said riser to PCI and SATA which is why my first comment was to clarify exactly what type of m.2 he is using.

The most common m.2 are either on board or via pci lanes. Not via SATA because again, you hit the bottleneck which defeats the point of even using m.2 to start with.

Dude, m.2 slots are ON BOARD many motherboards and laptops that use them with the SATA BUS. They are SATA drives, there is no SATA bottleneck, that is the speed that SATA runs. You literally can't use a PCIe and/or NVMe drive in them. They do exist, and are common.

M.2 is not for speed, its an interface and used for packaging purposes (ie no 2.5 inch drive taking up space). However M.2 can (and often is) used in conjunction with PCIe for speed, both x2 and x4 NVMe. There is also a PCIe interface that does accept 2.5 inch drives, its called U.2

 

[androbourne]

I think you need to do more research. There is indeed a SATA bottleneck that can be reached by SSD drives. M.2 bypasses this bottleneck with the on board technology tied directly to PCI lanes...

5 seconds of googles explains all this..

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/understanding-m-2-the-interface-that-will-speed-up-your-next-ssd/

The intent of M.2 was to be faster then an SSD which was limited by SATA bottleneck. That is why there is even SSD to PCI adaptor kits you can purchase for standard SSD drives...

Just look at any advertised speed of an M.2 and it is normally way faster then a standard SSD drive... it's intent was for speed.

Secondly the OP said "connected to SATA" not "SATA Power" again why I was attempting to clear up what type of m.2 he was using.

 

[Rogue Leader]

I think you need to do more research. There is indeed a SATA bottleneck that can be reached by SSD drives. M.2 bypasses this bottleneck with the on board technology tied directly to PCI lanes...

5 seconds of googles explains all this..

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/understanding-m-2-the-interface-that-will-speed-up-your-next-ssd/

The intent of M.2 was to be faster then an SSD which was limited by SATA bottleneck. That is why there is even SSD to PCI adaptor kits you can purchase for standard SSD drives...

Just look at any advertised speed of an M.2 and it is normally way faster then a standard SSD drive... it's intent was for speed.

I think you need to learn how to read.

SATA M.2 drives operate at the SAME SPEED as their SATA wired counterparts. The SATA bus does not run faster with a different connector. However M.2 allows the use of various BUSes including PCIe to allow for high speed drives. There is no SATA bottleneck, SATA drives are limited by the speed of a SATA BUS, no matter the connector. PCIE M.2 drive use the PCIe BUS.

I don't need to google this, this is actual facts that you should be googling before posting.

Secondly the OP said "connected to SATA" not "SATA Power" again why I was attempting to clear up what type of m.2 he was using.

The OP posted nonsensical information that we needed to interpret. Since he did say "PCIe Riser" that he plugged the drives into and no additional info we don't know if he bought this:

https://www.amazon.com/StarTech-com-SATA-Expansion-Mounted-Adapter/dp/B00SXGAXDC

Or this

https://www.amazon.com/SilverStone-Technology-SST-ECM20-Adapter-ECM20/dp/B01798WOJ0

Or what.

 

[androbourne]

I think you need to do more research. There is indeed a SATA bottleneck that can be reached by SSD drives. M.2 bypasses this bottleneck with the on board technology tied directly to PCI lanes...

5 seconds of googles explains all this..

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/understanding-m-2-the-interface-that-will-speed-up-your-next-ssd/

The intent of M.2 was to be faster then an SSD which was limited by SATA bottleneck. That is why there is even SSD to PCI adaptor kits you can purchase for standard SSD drives...

Just look at any advertised speed of an M.2 and it is normally way faster then a standard SSD drive... it's intent was for speed.

I think you need to learn how to read.

SATA M.2 drives operate at the SAME SPEED as their SATA wired counterparts. The SATA bus does not run faster with a different connector. However M.2 allows the use of various BUSes including PCIe to allow for high speed drives. There is no SATA bottleneck, SATA drives are limited by the speed of a SATA BUS, no matter the connector. PCIE M.2 drive use the PCIe BUS.

I don't need to google this, this is actual facts that you should be googling before posting.

Secondly the OP said "connected to SATA" not "SATA Power" again why I was attempting to clear up what type of m.2 he was using.

The OP posted nonsensical information that we needed to interpret. Since he did say "PCIe Riser" that he plugged the drives into and no additional info we don't know if he bought this:

https://www.amazon.com/StarTech-com-SATA-Expansion-Mounted-Adapter/dp/B00SXGAXDC

Or this

https://www.amazon.com/SilverStone-Technology-SST-ECM20-Adapter-ECM20/dp/B01798WOJ0

Or what.

There are actual facts in the link I just posted... you should read that before commenting.

As I stated. Many have found the SATA bottleneck. I'm not going to hold your hand and do research for you. I deal with Raids all day long and have countered the bottleneck myself along with many others.

I'll stick with the many benchmarks and supporting threads on the subject.

You do you.

 

[Rogue Leader]

There are actual facts in the link I just posted... you should read that before commenting.

As I stated. Many have found the SATA bottleneck. I'm not going to hold your hand and do research for you. I deal with Raids all day long and have countered the bottleneck myself along with many others.

I'll stick with the many benchmarks and supporting threads on the subject.

You do you.

I read the link, I've read a ton of things.

Show me ONE IOTA OF PROOF that a SATA M.2 drive runs faster than a SATA cabled drive. ONE. I'm not going to google to prove your point. The article you posted doesn't show that either hence why I said you need to learn to read. There is not a single benchmark that supports your claim, on the planet, ever.

Nobody has found the SATA bottleneck, there is no SATA bottleneck. SATA drives run at the bus speed of the SATA version the drive is and the interface is, period. The only way you could "bottleneck" a SATA drive is to run a SATA III drive on a SATA I port. That is likely what you are thinking of.

What "I do" is combat incorrect information, hence the "Moderator" tag under my name. So in "you doing you" you should be able to back up your statements with actual facts.

 

[androbourne]

Thats great. He said riser to PCI and SATA which is why my first comment was to clarify exactly what type of m.2 he is using.

The most common m.2 are either on board or via pci lanes. Not via SATA because again, you hit the bottleneck which defeats the point of even using m.2 to start with.

m.2 is simply the form factor.
Like 2.5" or 3.5"

m.2 drives can be had in either SATA III protocol or NVMe.
Some motherboard slots can take either or both.


SATA III m.2 drive:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820250090

NVMe m.2 drive:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820250084

Correct... my original comment was to clarify what type of m.2 he was using...

 

[Darkbreeze]

SATA M.2 drives run at a theoretical maximum speed that is EXACTLY the same as a theoretical SATA drive connected to the motherboard via SATA cable. The bus is the limit on speed, not the form factor. Period. There can be no argument regarding this, so to try and do so is pointless and shows a lack of understanding of the bus architecture entirely.

The only way you will achieve faster than SATA bus speeds using M.2 is to use an NVME drive that taps the speeds of the PCI bus, not an M.2 drive that uses the SATA bus. SATA M.2 gains you nothing in terms of speed over SATA cabled to the motherboard.

On another note, in the future please refrain from telling moderators they shouldn't post, whether you THINK you know more than them or not. It's a good way to end up going south on the failboat EVEN in instances where you might be right and they might be wrong. There are definitely better ways to communicate the idea that you are correct, which, in this case though, you are not.

 

[androbourne]

SATA M.2 drives run at a theoretical maximum speed that is EXACTLY the same as a theoretical SATA drive connected to the motherboard via SATA cable. The bus is the limit on speed, not the form factor. Period. There can be no argument regarding this, so to try and do so is pointless and shows a lack of understanding of the bus architecture entirely.

The only way you will achieve faster than SATA bus speeds using M.2 is to use an NVME drive that taps the speeds of the PCI bus, not an M.2 drive that uses the SATA bus. SATA M.2 gains you nothing in terms of speed over SATA cabled to the motherboard.

On another note, in the future please refrain from telling moderators they shouldn't post, whether you THINK you know more than them or not. It's a good way to end up going south on the failboat EVEN in instances where you might be right and they might be wrong. There are definitely better ways to communicate the idea that you are correct, which, in this case though, you are not.

Yeah well same goes for the modder. Want to step off that high horse. That would be great. Treat others the way you want to be treated... its that simple. This is not a one way street.

I asked a simple question. Didnt say he was right or wrong and he replied with a snarky remark, so you get a snarky reply.

 

[Darkbreeze]

No moderator in this thread was ever on a "high horse".

Just because the plain fact regarding something does not agree with your sense of correctness, does not make it wrong nor does it mean the person relaying that information to you is acting outside the normal purview of their duties. Fact is fact. It has nothing to do with making your, or anybody else, feel wrong, and has everything to do with making sure as little misinformation as possible exists on these pages.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Yeah well same goes for the modder. Want to step off that high horse. That would be great. Treat others the way you want to be treated... its that simple. This is not a one way street.

I asked a simple question. Didnt say he was right or wrong and he replied with a snarky remark, so you get a snarky reply.

You did, and you posted incorrect information. I didn't call you an idiot or anything like that. Then you doubled down on the wrong information. Again you haven't produced a single benchmark to prove what you said. You need to go back and read where the snark came from, it didn't start on this end.

You work with RAIDs all day? So does every office worker, on the servers they use.

 

[androbourne]

Whatever you say. I provided links with facts on a SATA bottleneck that you continued to argue. Fine. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't there. Then to top it off you stated "you need to learn to read" and you excepted what? A fluffy reply?

Come the hell on man.

We are here to help users. I'm not here to argue. You have a problem with that, its on you. Just because you don't believe something to be true, doesn't mean it isn't. Links are right there and 5 seconds of googling backs up what I've been saying.

"so does every office worker" right... a childish response. No they dont deal with Raid and if you asked an office worker to perform a Raid 10 on a server their fuzzy little head would explode. I do this in the field for enterprise clients, some even inc 500 companies, dealing with MSA2040s on SSD in Raid 50s in environments with over 150 servers in them...

Completely different then"every office worker"

And you wonder why we are auguring... Jesus man. Wake up.

Anyways, I'm done. This is not helping the OP. So just stop.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Whatever you say. I provided links with facts on a SATA bottleneck that you continued to argue. Fine. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't there. Then to top it off you stated "you need to learn to read" and you excepted what? A fluffy reply?

Come the hell on man.

We are here to help users. I'm not here to argue. You have a problem with that, its on you. Just because you don't believe something to be true, doesn't mean it isn't. Links are right there and 5 seconds of googling backs up what I've been saying.

"so does every office worker" right... a childish response. No they dont deal with Raid and if you asked an office worker to perform a Raid 10 on a server their fuzzy little head would explode. I do this in the field for enterprise clients, some even inc 500 companies, dealing with MSA2040s on SSD in Raid 50s in environments with over 150 servers in them...

Completely different then"every office worker"

And you wonder why we are auguring... Jesus man. Wake up.

Anyways, I'm done. This is not helping the OP. So just stop.

I asked you to provide a benchmark, not a 4 year old Ars technica article describing what M.2 is. You provided no links with facts. I know what M.2 is, I know how the interface works. Its not that I don't believe you, its that you are wrong. And last I checked you are the one who told ME to "do my research" while posting, again, WRONG information.

You STILL have not provided a benchmark. You could shut me down in one fell swoop, by showing me a SATA M.2 drive is faster than a standard SATA III drive. You want to prove a point, YOU prove it, don't tell me to google your misinformation.

We are here to help people, I am here to also moderate that help and ensure the correct information. You have continuously posted incorrect information. Hence I am here trying to set that record straight. You are the one escalating this by insisting you're right and expecting us to just leave it there.

So again, prove yourself right, ONE benchmark is all we need.

 

[androbourne]

Whatever you say. I provided links with facts on a SATA bottleneck that you continued to argue. Fine. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't there. Then to top it off you stated "you need to learn to read" and you excepted what? A fluffy reply?

Come the hell on man.

We are here to help users. I'm not here to argue. You have a problem with that, its on you. Just because you don't believe something to be true, doesn't mean it isn't. Links are right there and 5 seconds of googling backs up what I've been saying.

"so does every office worker" right... a childish response. No they dont deal with Raid and if you asked an office worker to perform a Raid 10 on a server their fuzzy little head would explode. I do this in the field for enterprise clients, some even inc 500 companies, dealing with MSA2040s on SSD in Raid 50s in environments with over 150 servers in them...

Completely different then"every office worker"

And you wonder why we are auguring... Jesus man. Wake up.

Anyways, I'm done. This is not helping the OP. So just stop.

I asked you to provide a benchmark, not a 4 year old Ars technica article describing what M.2 is. You provided no links with facts. I know what M.2 is, I know how the interface works. Its not that I don't believe you, its that you are wrong. And last I checked you are the one who told ME to "do my research" while posting, again, WRONG information.

You STILL have not provided a benchmark. You could shut me down in one fell swoop, by showing me a SATA M.2 drive is faster than a standard SATA III drive. You want to prove a point, YOU prove it, don't tell me to google your misinformation.

We are here to help people, I am here to also moderate that help and ensure the correct information. You have continuously posted incorrect information. Hence I am here trying to set that record straight. You are the one escalating this by insisting you're right and expecting us to just leave it there.

So again, prove yourself right, ONE benchmark is all we need.

Not my job to provide you with facts. If you don't know something. Research it and learn it for yourself. I'm not going to hand hold you through the process. But since taking 5 minutes out of your life to google to too hard. I'll do it for it.

First results I have found in 5 secs. We also know benchmarks are artificial and do not work for every day world. Benchmarks are not 100% accurate.

https://pressf1.pcworld.co.nz/showthread.php?143082-SSD-drives-vs-SATA3-bottleneck

https://www.cnet.com/uk/products/samsung-nvme-ssd-960-evo/preview/

You argued that m.2 wasn't intended for speed. I disagreed. It clearly is.

The SATA bottleneck has the capped limit of 6gb on Sata III. THAT IS A BOTTLENECK... Look up what bottleneck means.

Tons of M.2 can hit that bottleneck of SATA, especially due to overhead with interface protocol and especially in a Raid. This is why M.2 PCI is even a thing.

You continue to argue the bottleneck isn't there and I have provided 3 posts that state it is there. You need more proof. Get it for yourself, I'm not your mother.

The fact remains M.2 can produce and saturate the SATA line enough to reach the SATA bottleneck. Now does that mean every day users will reach that limit. Doubltful, but it is still possible. Which is what my point was.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Whatever you say. I provided links with facts on a SATA bottleneck that you continued to argue. Fine. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't there. Then to top it off you stated "you need to learn to read" and you excepted what? A fluffy reply?

Come the hell on man.

We are here to help users. I'm not here to argue. You have a problem with that, its on you. Just because you don't believe something to be true, doesn't mean it isn't. Links are right there and 5 seconds of googling backs up what I've been saying.

"so does every office worker" right... a childish response. No they dont deal with Raid and if you asked an office worker to perform a Raid 10 on a server their fuzzy little head would explode. I do this in the field for enterprise clients, some even inc 500 companies, dealing with MSA2040s on SSD in Raid 50s in environments with over 150 servers in them...

Completely different then"every office worker"

And you wonder why we are auguring... Jesus man. Wake up.

Anyways, I'm done. This is not helping the OP. So just stop.

I asked you to provide a benchmark, not a 4 year old Ars technica article describing what M.2 is. You provided no links with facts. I know what M.2 is, I know how the interface works. Its not that I don't believe you, its that you are wrong. And last I checked you are the one who told ME to "do my research" while posting, again, WRONG information.

You STILL have not provided a benchmark. You could shut me down in one fell swoop, by showing me a SATA M.2 drive is faster than a standard SATA III drive. You want to prove a point, YOU prove it, don't tell me to google your misinformation.

We are here to help people, I am here to also moderate that help and ensure the correct information. You have continuously posted incorrect information. Hence I am here trying to set that record straight. You are the one escalating this by insisting you're right and expecting us to just leave it there.

So again, prove yourself right, ONE benchmark is all we need.

Not my job to provide you with facts. If you don't know something. Research it and learn it for yourself, I'm not going to hand hold you through the process. But since taking 5 minutes out of your life to google to too hard. I'll do it for it.

First results I have found in 5 secs. We also know bench marks are artificial and do not work for every day world. Benchmarks are not 100% accurate.

https://pressf1.pcworld.co.nz/showthread.php?143082-SSD-drives-vs-SATA3-bottleneck

https://www.cnet.com/uk/products/samsung-nvme-ssd-960-evo/preview/

You argued that m.2 wasn't intended for speed. I dsiagreed. It clearly is.

The SATA bottleneck has the capped limit of 6gb on Sata III. THAT IS A BOTTLENECK... Look up what bottleneck means.

Tons of M.2 can hit that bottleneck of SATA, especially due to overhead and especially in a Raid. This is why M.2 PCI is even a thing.

You continue to argue the bottleneck isn't there and I have provided 3 posts that state it is there. You need more proof. Get it for yourself, I'm not your mother.

The fact remains M.2 and produce and saturate the SATA line enough to reach the SATA bottleneck. Now does that mean every day users will reach that limit. Doubltful, but it is still possible. Which is what my point was.

You cannot be serious right now, you cannot be serious. No there is no way.

Those are PCIe drives! I'm literally falling off my chair right now. All this you are fighting me over M.2 PCIe drives.

We all know they are faster, that was not what you said. They are NOT FASTER BECAUSE OF THE M.2 SLOT. They are faster because they are M.2 PCIe. Yes SATA bottleneck, SATA is slower, hence these drives are PCIe!

M.2 slots support PCIe, SATA, and some even USB. M.2 SATA drives run at SATA III for the now 10th time. There are motherboards out there, current model boards that have M.2 slots that are SATA. There are tons of Laptops out there with M.2 slots, which are also SATA. M.2 is an interface NOT A BUS.

If you stuck an M.2 SATA drive into an M.2 PCIe slot it wouldn't even work, unless its a slot that supports both. If it was, it would again work at SATA III speeds.

 

[USAFRet]

Again...m.2 is simply the form factor.

An m.2 port that only accepts a SATA III drive (yes, there are a lot of them) provides exactly the same performance as a typical 2.5" SATA III drive in a regular SATA III port on the motherboard.

An m.2 port that accepts either will still only provide SATA III performance with a SATA III drive.

With an NVMe drive in an m.2 port that accepts it, then things get faster.

"m.2" is not there to provide faster speed, just to be a different package and connection type.


There are several drives that are available in either 2.5" or m.2 packaging.
The same drive and performance and price, just in a different package.

 

[androbourne]

Whatever you say. I provided links with facts on a SATA bottleneck that you continued to argue. Fine. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't there. Then to top it off you stated "you need to learn to read" and you excepted what? A fluffy reply?

Come the hell on man.

We are here to help users. I'm not here to argue. You have a problem with that, its on you. Just because you don't believe something to be true, doesn't mean it isn't. Links are right there and 5 seconds of googling backs up what I've been saying.

"so does every office worker" right... a childish response. No they dont deal with Raid and if you asked an office worker to perform a Raid 10 on a server their fuzzy little head would explode. I do this in the field for enterprise clients, some even inc 500 companies, dealing with MSA2040s on SSD in Raid 50s in environments with over 150 servers in them...

Completely different then"every office worker"

And you wonder why we are auguring... Jesus man. Wake up.

Anyways, I'm done. This is not helping the OP. So just stop.

I asked you to provide a benchmark, not a 4 year old Ars technica article describing what M.2 is. You provided no links with facts. I know what M.2 is, I know how the interface works. Its not that I don't believe you, its that you are wrong. And last I checked you are the one who told ME to "do my research" while posting, again, WRONG information.

You STILL have not provided a benchmark. You could shut me down in one fell swoop, by showing me a SATA M.2 drive is faster than a standard SATA III drive. You want to prove a point, YOU prove it, don't tell me to google your misinformation.

We are here to help people, I am here to also moderate that help and ensure the correct information. You have continuously posted incorrect information. Hence I am here trying to set that record straight. You are the one escalating this by insisting you're right and expecting us to just leave it there.

So again, prove yourself right, ONE benchmark is all we need.

Not my job to provide you with facts. If you don't know something. Research it and learn it for yourself, I'm not going to hand hold you through the process. But since taking 5 minutes out of your life to google to too hard. I'll do it for it.

First results I have found in 5 secs. We also know bench marks are artificial and do not work for every day world. Benchmarks are not 100% accurate.

https://pressf1.pcworld.co.nz/showthread.php?143082-SSD-drives-vs-SATA3-bottleneck

https://www.cnet.com/uk/products/samsung-nvme-ssd-960-evo/preview/

You argued that m.2 wasn't intended for speed. I dsiagreed. It clearly is.

The SATA bottleneck has the capped limit of 6gb on Sata III. THAT IS A BOTTLENECK... Look up what bottleneck means.

Tons of M.2 can hit that bottleneck of SATA, especially due to overhead and especially in a Raid. This is why M.2 PCI is even a thing.

You continue to argue the bottleneck isn't there and I have provided 3 posts that state it is there. You need more proof. Get it for yourself, I'm not your mother.

The fact remains M.2 and produce and saturate the SATA line enough to reach the SATA bottleneck. Now does that mean every day users will reach that limit. Doubltful, but it is still possible. Which is what my point was.

You cannot be serious right now, you cannot be serious. No there is no way.

Those are PCIe drives! I'm literally falling off my chair right now. All this you are fighting me over M.2 PCIe drives.

We all know they are faster, that was not what you said. They are NOT FASTER BECAUSE OF THE M.2 SLOT. They are faster because they are M.2 PCIe.

M.2 slots support PCIe, SATA, and even USB. M.2 SATA drives run at SATA III for the now 10th time. There are motherboards out there, current model boards that have M.2 slots that are SATA. There are tons of Laptops out there with M.2 slots, which are also SATA. M.2 is an interface NOT A BUS.

You realize there are SATA m.2 right? Which is why I asked OP for type of drive he was using. He didn't state he was USING SATA POWER HE JUST SAID SATA.

If he was using it in a SATA configuration (AKA plugged into SATA III port) then reaching those bottlenecks is possible. Which is all I was saying. I dont understand how you are not seeing that.

Example, if he was using this: https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=m2+to+sata&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=229123769480&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=10013601819636838871&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9012143&hvtargid=kwd-350505951727&ref=pd_sl_y1cg61dd5_e_p37 (It doesn’t support M2. PCI-E) or even a standard SSD in a SATA port... bottleneck can exist.

I don't know how many different ways I have to say it. SATA has a bottleneck. If the drive is using PCI bus then thats not an issue. the problem is the SATA PORT. AKA why M.2 Slot was created.

 

[USAFRet]

You realize there are SATA m.2 right? Which is why I asked OP for type of drive he was using. He didn't state he was USING SATA POWER HE JUST SAID SATA.

Direct from the OP:
"two Samsung 970 Pro's in a Raid 1"
"or does the fact that we (appear) to have to connect Sata leads to the cards mean that it will use the Sata bus"