Re: Here we go again

From	Davey <davey@example.invalid>
Newsgroups	uk.comp.os.linux
Subject	Re: Here we go again
Date	2025-09-08 11:50 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<109mcdb$74et$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <lRhhRHlA@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <1099rhn$18ptm$1@dont-email.me> <lRh94HlA@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <109bq2b$1lg6g$2@dont-email.me> <109ces1$1sb4s$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 17:30:57 +0100
Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote:

> On 04/09/2025 11:35, Davey wrote:
> > I am not familiar with all this, but I have identified the
> > following:
> > https://cpc.farnell.com/kingston/snv3s-2000g/ssd-nv3-m-2-2280-pcie4-0-
> > nvme/dp/CS37703?st=pcie%20to%20pci for the new SSD.
> > Then a choice:
> > For the SATA-USB adapter, possibly, at £9.78:
> > https://cpc.farnell.com/startech/usb3s2sat3cb/lead-sata-to-usb-with- 
> > uasp/dp/CS34473?st=ssd%20to%20usb%20adapters
> > or at £28.48:
> > https://cpc.farnell.com/startech/usb312sat3/adapter-usb3-1-10gb-s-sata- 
> > ssd/dp/CS30219?st=ssd%20to%20usb%20adapters
> > I do not see why there is such a price difference, unless one gets
> > what one pays for.  
> 
> It's probably that the more expensive adaptor works with 3.5" drives, 
> and they have different power requirements. The page you linked to
> does say that a power adaptor is included.
> 
> 2.5" drives (whether SSD or spinning rust) need only 5V.
> 
> > Looking for an M2-USB adapter, I found, for £42.38:
> > https://cpc.farnell.com/startech/m2-usb-c-nvme-sata/enclosure-usb-c-to-m-2-nvme-sata/dp/CS35447?st=m2%20to%20usb%20adapters
> > which looks as though it would do both jobs (not at the same time,
> > of course).  
> 
> Both jobs? It'll house your M.2 NVMe drive (and would work with an
> M.2 SATA drive) but won't work with a 2.5" SATA drive. Different
> interface.
> 
> Nice that it comes with both USB-A and USB-C cables ... but I'm
> guessing you only need the former?
> 
> It looks a little expensive, too. Have a look at:
> 
> https://www.scan.co.uk/products/sabrent-ec-snve-usb32-type-c-enclosure-m2-pcie-nvme-sata-ssd-tool-free-10gbps-speeds-plug-and-play-a
> 
> or for that matter:
> 
> https://business.currys.co.uk/catalogue/computing/P219238P
> 
> which is perhaps an older version of the one you found?
> 

OK, this is where I am. I am rapidly thinking that the easiest solution
will be to remove the m2 SSD, which I believe still has the video files
on it. Even if they are lost, they are mostly stored elsewhere.
Then I would re-install the OS as a clean install onto the original
SATA 1TB SSD, knowing that I would lose anything on there. Maybe not.
The only major loss would be the Local Folders saved since the last
Backup. Since my e-mail is via gmail. all messages are still available
the server, and so the missing Local Folders could be restored, with
some work. I have always backed up any altered documents every night.

Parts of my reasoning are that: 

1. The manufacturer does not offer now a direct 1TB or 2TB SATA SSD.
Buying one from a different source would just add another possible
layer of confusion, as if there were not enough already. It offers
those sizes in HDD, but that would compromise speed. For a replacement
SSD, it offers either 500GB (£59) or 4TB (£324).

2. One thought is to buy the 500GB SSD, use that for the new install,
grab the 'lost' data, save it elsewhere, and finally return the 1TB SSD
and start again. But would a 500GB drive be big enough?
Or possibly, for this job only, either the 1TB HDD, (£48), or the 2TB
HDD (£71). But then they would sit on the shelf.

3. The whole process of trying to mount the old SSDs and grabbing the
data from them is an unknown to me, I have not managed to mount
such partitions while booted from a Live USB. Essentially, I am talking
about the Devil I know rather than the Devil I don't.

I can't help feeling that this simpler process would ultimately be more
successful, and faster than attempting to grab the old data.

Hmmm. Remember, I am a Stranger in a Strange Land here. Thoughts?

-- 
Davey.

Back to uk.comp.os.linux | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-02 11:03 +0100
  Re: Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-03 08:57 +0100
    Re: Here we go again Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2025-09-03 16:49 +0100
      Re: Here we go again Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-09-03 17:21 +0100
        Re: Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-03 17:48 +0100
          Re: Here we go again Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-09-03 18:20 +0100
            Re: Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-03 20:10 +0100
            Re: Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-03 20:50 +0100
            Re: Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-04 11:35 +0100
              Re: Here we go again Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2025-09-04 17:30 +0100
                Re: Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-04 19:52 +0100
                Re: Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-05 23:49 +0100
                Re: Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-08 11:50 +0100
                Re: Here we go again "Vincent Coen" <VBCoen@gmail.com> - 2025-09-08 16:11 +0100
                Re: Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-08 17:28 +0100
                TRIM (Was: Here we go again) Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2025-09-15 16:00 +0100
                Re: TRIM (Was: Here we go again) Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-15 17:30 +0100
                Re: TRIM Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-17 08:43 +0100
                Re: TRIM Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2025-09-17 10:30 +0100
                Re: TRIM Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-17 11:05 +0100
                Re: TRIM Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2025-09-17 15:12 +0100
                Re: TRIM Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-17 15:54 +0100
                Re: Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-09 09:04 +0100
                Re: Here we go again "Vincent Coen" <VBCoen@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 12:19 +0100
                Re: Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-09 18:03 +0100
                Re: Here we go again "Vincent Coen" <VBCoen@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 22:02 +0100
                Re: Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-10 00:14 +0100
                Re: Here we go again -Update Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-11 17:12 +0100
                Re: Here we go again -Update Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-21 16:10 +0100
                Re: Here we go again -Update "Vincent Coen" <VBCoen@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 01:41 +0100
                Re: Here we go again -Update Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-22 09:29 +0100
                Re: Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-10 12:43 +0100
                Re: Here we go again Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-09-08 21:33 +0100
              Re: Here we go again Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2025-09-04 20:07 +0100
                Re: Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-05 02:47 +0100
          Re: Here we go again Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> - 2025-09-03 23:46 +0000
            Re: Here we go again Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-09-04 09:36 +0100
        Re: Here we go again Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> - 2025-09-03 23:31 +0000

csiph-web