1180
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
1180 points (98.8% liked)
Comic Strips
12620 readers
3627 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
TB4 is like 5000MB/s if the mini PC has that. Plenty fast for a lot of applications. It'll cap an NVME but it's good enough to run off of.
Is it? I haven't tried, but there's a pretty big gulf between an NVMe interface max bandwidth and TB4's. I mean, TB4 is pretty amazing (40Gbps), but NVMe m.2 is 128Gbps; Sabrent makes an m.2 SSD with 104kGbps read speeds; heck, Crucial has a $114 2TB m.2 SSD they claim gets 40k/33.6k R/W. And this assumes that whatever computer you get access to has a TB4 port, and not just USBC 3.0, which tops out at 5Gbps.
But this all reminds me that I need to get a bigger NVMe stick and move everything off the SCSI SSD.
Depends on exactly what you need. For a lot of day to day tasks, especially if you're not moving around large amounts of data, TB4 speeds are probably fine.
I wouldn't do it with USB 3.0, but 3.2 gen 2 could theoretically work depending on your workload and use case.
My usage barely benefits past 3.2 gen 2 because my disk is never my bottleneck. It's either network or processor. It's one of those things where everyone has to look at their own usage and decide.
This is... fair. But, while I don't often move large amounts of data, consider: this thread started with me speculating about using a bootable USB drive instead of hauling computer equipment around. So we have to consider that (a) booting will be frequent - more frequent than a desktop or even laptop, maybe twice daily if I'm moving between work and home. That's going to be relatively slow. Then starting up whatever programs: the desktop, apps - god forbid I need to use Eclipse or another monster programs.
I guess I might be able to set it up for hibernate, but since that stores machine state including devices and network state which are going to vary between computers, I'm guessing that's not going to work reliably if at all.
USB 3.x and TB4 put this more in the range of possibility, but it still sounds slow.
Yeah, I may have gone a bit far afield to try to point out that it can be done. It's not going to be for everyone, and maybe it would be too slow for you.
It was fun to think about, and I enjoyed the friendly conversation.
Don't get me wrong: the idea is super appealing, and the technology has gotten good enough it's practical - i absolutely agree about that. I was only saying that there'd be a noticeable difference in performance of you're used to M.2 NVMe.
I think a bigger concern is trusting other people's hardware. It's getting increasingly fraught, with key loggers and such; I'm not sure how much I'd trust my (digital) life to a random computer - and then there's the issue of secure boot, and needing computers that have either unprotected BIOS menus or which are already configured to boot first from USB (which is IME an increasingly rare default configuration).