NUC: SATA v. M.2

It seem that with the latest prices I could run Roon ROCK on my SATA SSD and my Music files on the M.2, I know this I backwards from the normal boot order, but why not?

because you are wasting the speed of the M.2 and I am not entirely sure that if you have an M.2 and a SATA that you can use them the other way around. M.2 is the primary OS location for ROCK, as far as I know.

Also at this point in time the M.2 sizes are limited to shorter length boards for the NUC and SATA can support much larger capacities for music.

Can you provide an example?

I’m curious about this too. My currenty nuc has a 250gb ssd running the core and no m.2. I have my files on a nas and everything runds great but I want to move the files to the nuc and so I need 500gb (for the files).

Since the ssd is already running the core files It would be easier to buy a 500gb m.2 and leave the core files where they are (on the ssd). Otherwise I would have to buy a new 500gb ssd AND a 64gb m.2.

I’m also thinking it might improve performance, some of the files I have are large and putting them on the faster drive might improve performance?

Are you saying you’re not utilizing the m.2 slot (it’s empty) or that your NUC is not equipped with an m.2 slot?

I have an m.2 slot but it is empty.

Improve performance?
Nothing in playback is limited by the speed of reading the music files.

So I can use an old floppy drive I have for file storage? :wink:

Why not? :rofl:

1 Like

If you’re streaming DSD tracks then stick with 3.5" floppy disks. The read speeds of 5.25" disks struggle under the high kbit/s sustained read speeds required by DSD. Forget the 8" floppy disks – they’re only good for lossy formats like MQA.

3 Likes

Another thread from a roon poobah said that the drive speed of the core is the single most important factor in performance… so I decode to buy two new drives.

what was implied is the core…not the music storage location. the core holds the database that its key to the speed of all related access to information with respect to the library, not the music itself.

Yes, that’s why I bought two drives instead of leaving the core on the ssd and putting the files on the m.2

I am not convinced that the drive speed is the single most important factor.
This is true if you you are comparing a mechanical HD to a SSD, but not necessarily comparing SATA SSD to M2
Real world performance might not differ as much as synthetic benchmarks.

I rather have CPU with faster single thread performance over a slightly faster SSD.

3 Likes

2.5" drives and M.2 are both form factors.
SATA and NVMe are transmission standards.
HDD and SSD are different types of storage mediums.

There are M.2 SATA SSD drives and M.2 NVMe SSD drives. There are also 2.5" SATA SSD and HDD drives, but no 2.5" NVMe drives of any sort.

While there is a small bump in performance from SATA -> NVMe for the Roon Core, this statement is all about HDD -> SSD.

M.2 and 2.5" form factors do not enter the equation at all other than as a limitation of hardware interfaces

1 Like

3 posts were split to a new topic: NUC M.2 vs U.2 vs 2.5"

What is the Roon Core more dependent on random access or sequential transfer?
Because when it comes to random access a premium SATA drive can easily be faster than a small budget NVMe drive.

Random.

Once again, the suggestion is not SATA vs NVMe – it is HDD vs SSD. SSD wins hands down, and SATA vs NVMe does not matter much for Roon.

I have ‘premium’ 5400 RPM SATA disks in my NAS but doubt they could hold a candle to a (‘small’) NVMe disk when it comes to randoms. Hell, I’d bet even the sequentials would be slower.

your NVMe is not spinning platters – your SATA drives are spinning platters at a paltry 5400 rpm. the difference there has nothing to do with the interface of the drive (SATA vs NVMe), but the medium of the storage (HDD vs SSD)

I had no idea there was so much misuse of these terms.

1 Like