Talk:U.2

Benefits of U.2 over M.2

I have concerns that the way this section is currently structured is not neutral. It only conveys supposed benefits rather than a straight feature comparison and many of the claims are un-cited. I feel the section needs cleanup or rewriting.--Topperfalkon (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow, yeah, that section is very non-NPOV. I've started by removing all unsourced statements, but it really needs rewriting. rchard2scout (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I just nuked the whole thing. First, it compares U.2 with a heatsink vs. M.2 without, but M.2 heatsinks are widely available. Next it makes a big deal about U.2 2.5" drives holding more chips that M.2 sticks. Duh. They are also bigger. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Bad picture !

Which of the several connectors displayed on the picture of those SSDs is the U.2 ? -- 142.183.128.215 (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I encountered this very issue at work today: a fellow tech had an SSD with an unfamiliar arrangement of connectors that almost resembled the familiar SATA interface, but had extra contacts that neither of us had seen before. It was only while researching another issue that I came across a diagram (found here) that allowed me to determine that SSD had a U.2 formfactor. So a diagram of the interface is a desiderata. -- llywrch (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

U dot 2

Come on, no real person is calling anything U dot 2 176.235.159.155 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

U.2 and U.3 Drive Interoperability?

In the article it says

U.2 devices are not compatible and cannot be used with U.3 hosts. [9]

quoting [9] which is <https://www.storagereview.com/news/evolving-storage-with-sff-ta-1001-u-3-universal-drive-bays>

The same source is quoted from NVM Express as follows:

U.3 devices are required to be backwards-compatible with U.2 hosts. U.2 devices can be used with U.3 hosts. [49]

with [49] being again <https://www.storagereview.com/news/evolving-storage-with-sff-ta-1001-u-3-universal-drive-bays>

In my opinion the quoted article is not exactly clear about this but it leans more towards the full interoperability option i.e. I think it reads more like the 2nd option that indeed an U.2 drive could be used in an U.3 host and vice-versa.

However, there are also people on the Internet also claiming the opposite, e.g. here:

• <https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/tech/ServerNVMeU2U3AndOthers2022>
• <https://quarch.com/news/what-you-need-know-about-u3/>

Can anybody confirm what is the actual expected (or observed) compatibility between these standards? If yes, I think it might make sense to amend the respective wrong article (either NVM Express or U.2)?

Linux-Fan M7A (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)