From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 326021382C5 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 16:03:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A3C33E0949; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 16:03:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost01b.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost01b.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46B71E0935 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 16:03:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.69.80.10] (helo=peak.localnet) by smarthost01b.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jigj3-00022p-RE for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 16:03:45 +0000 From: Peter Humphrey To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo-sources 5.7.x Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 17:03:45 +0100 Message-ID: <5363967.DvuYhMxLoT@peak> In-Reply-To: <20200609154556.GA7104@ACM> References: <5608959.lOV4Wx5bFT@peak> <2726922.e9J7NaK4W3@peak> <20200609154556.GA7104@ACM> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Originating-smarthost01b-IP: [82.69.80.10] Feedback-ID: 82.69.80.10 X-Archives-Salt: dcef3d8f-3507-45d8-9aca-26347139c2de X-Archives-Hash: 1c33ede07b78ae308bdfff54950246fb On Tuesday, 9 June 2020 16:45:56 BST Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Hello, Peter. > > Either an annoyance, or some potentially useful info: > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 15:46:43 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > I'll try this in a minute - thanks for the idea. I've stuck with device > > names so far because (i) I can read them, and (ii) I can't ever have > > more than one NVMe device in this box. > > If the reason for the "can't ever" is the lack of M2 slots on your > motherboard, you can get a PCIe board with an M2 slot on it. This way > you can get two NVMe devices in a single box. Provided you've got enough > PCIe lanes, and suchlike. This is precisely my setup, where I've got two > 500 Gb NVMe's in a raid-1 configuration. I've heard of that arrangement, but I haven't looked into it because the spec says the M2 device occupies both PCI-x slots. There may be ways round this, but my 256GB drive is enough for me; I do have a couple of 1TB SATA SSDs as well. -- Regards, Peter.