Thanks, I'm getting clearer with the motherboard.

The best option would be an RTX 3070 at a price equivalent to the RTX 2070 SUPER (or even the RTX 2060 cheaper). At least wait until February when there is enough stock, and see if the prices of other components don't go up.

Zotac GAMING GeForce RTX 3070 Twin Edge 8GB GDDR6 - Graphics Card Zotac €519.95 - Out of Stock at CoolMod
KFA2 GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER Work The Frames Edition 8GB GDDR6 - Graphics Card KFA2 €549.95 - Out of Stock at CoolMod

As for SSD-HDD, it could be 1 NVMe PCIe 4.0 for the Operating System, 1 NVMe PCIe 3.0 for caches and programs, 1 M.2 SATA or SATA3 SSD for programs and games, and HDD for storage, downloads, backups...

NVMe PCIe 4.0
Samsung SSD 980 PRO Series PCIe 4.0 NVMe 500GB - Solid State Drive M.2 €158.95

NVMe PCIe 3.0
Western Digital Blue SN550 NVMe 1TB PCIe Gen 3 - Solid State Drive M.2 €102.95

M.2 SATA
Western Digital Blue 1TB - Solid State Drive M.2 €108.95
Western Digital Blue 2TB SATA3 - Solid State Drive M.2 €193.95
Samsung 860 EVO 1TB - Solid State Drive M.2 €157.95 (-12%)

SSD
Western Digital Blue 2TB 2.5" SATA3 - Solid State Drive €196.95
Samsung SSD 870 QVO 2TB 2.5" SATA3 - Solid State Drive €219.95

Why that size? I don't want to take that idea away from you, but I have a 32" 16:9 monitor about 1 meter from my eyes, and I have plenty of space. A 40" monitor already seems too big to me, so a 49" one is either relatively far away or you're going to be moving your neck all the time. In fact, when I watch movies, I like to sit about half a meter further away. I would also say that being so panoramic, watch out, because it's cool for working, but with certain games it's not going to give you much, and add to that the graphics monster you need to run games at that resolution. My monitor is only 1440p, so it's easier to move.

At work I have 2 25" 16:10 monitors and if you have to switch between them a lot, it's a bit of a hassle in the end. It's cool because I have more desk space than at home with the 32", but if I could choose, I would have a 32" at work.

In the end it's a matter of taste and habits, but a 49" seems excessive to me, so before buying anything, go to a shopping center, stand in front of a TV at the distance you think you would use it and see if it's comfortable or not.

That's what I did with the living room TV and the 32" monitor.

@whoololon Sí, todavía no lo he comprado. Seguramente pida ayuda en el foro con la configuración y presupuesto.
Estaba recopilando información sobre las tareas que habría que hacer para ponerlo a punto.

Leí que se puede generar una iso autoarranque con "Rufus, por ejemplo. MBR para bios antiguas. GPT para actuales. Desactivar Secure Boot en bios. Instalar como Uefi."

Muchas gracias.

@krampak said in Considering a NAS for storage, backup, VPN, Plex:

@_Neptunno_ said in Considering a NAS for storage, backup, VPN, Plex:

but keep in mind that the larger the size, the longer it takes to rebuild a volume in case of a failure and the more risks you have that during that reconstruction the system will fail again and you'll be left with a broken system.

But we're talking about hours, right? What are the probabilities? I've had to replace a couple of disks in RAID5 servers and it's been very convenient. What does decrease the performance while it's doing the reconstruction, at least in my case.

Well, as I mentioned, it depends a lot on the size of the Raid 5 and to a lesser extent on the type of disks and the controller itself. The truth is that it's a topic to talk about at length, I think a Raid 5 is a good solution although you should also consider the server where it's mounted and the model of the disks.
I say this because in small companies or some local administration, for not investing money in a good server and disks for that environment, a raid 5 can give some problems since during the reconstruction time users continue working and they notice that slowdown of the system... and for the administrator it's a pain because it can take hours during which you know that if another disk fails, you're in big trouble.
The issue of disks seems trivial but in the long run I realize it's fundamental, sometimes those disks stop working in raid but in normal mode they don't give problems. With a raid 1, if that disk fails, you can even plug it into another machine and access that information. I'm talking about typical disks like WD blue, or green... it's not the same as the red ones, to give an example.

But in the case of the equipment we set up in my company, they are digital preservation systems and they handle many Terabytes of information, so to rebuild a Raid 5 of 20-40TB (just to give an example) is crazy for Raid5. I think what my colleagues do is make smaller groups in raid 5 and avoid having to spend several days on reconstruction.

I'm not saying a Raid 5 is bad, maybe I'm explaining myself wrong, but I mean that there are certain conditions that can be a bit of a pain... having a backup shouldn't be a problem even if you have a total loss of the raid.
But I'm talking more at the level of a home or small business or organization, where a raid 1 of 2 or 4TB disks plus two other disks aside in a server for copies save you more than enough... of course the performance offered by the 5 is a plus to consider and more if you have many users working.

In short, I think it's important to see what you need in each circumstance since there are people who prioritize performance, space, security and above all money.

Sorry for the long post!!

Thanks for the replies. Yes, I meant HDD.

I compiled this to take into account:

Read the specifications of your motherboard in Storage, since the m.2. connection usually disables some sata or pci-e.
The m.2. nvme ssd is worth it if you are going to work with very heavy files, many gigas, or for constant reads and writes. If not, you won't get the most out of it, you won't notice it in performance.

If you are going to make good use of it, it will need a heat sink since they get pretty hot, causing throttling or in other words, low speed to keep working but with a loss of performance.

Other cheaper SSDs: offers of the WD Black SN750 at 80-90€ for 500gb.
The Sabrent Rocket are also a good option, except the Q (QLC) which is worse...

From what I understand for multi-monitor setups, AMD is still the way to go, but if you need CUDA you'll have to go nVIDIA.

The cheapest option, a Ryzen with integrated graphics and a nVIDIA that's just enough to run the program you're using.

Salu2!

For a Ryzen 3000 (AM4) I have seen boards that support 128 GB. An AMD Ryzen Threadripper may already support 8 slots on its boards.

4 slots should be 4 x 32 GB, maybe it is more expensive, than 8 x 16 GB.

Here I see prices a bit cheaper from 599

https://www.alternate.es/Memoria-RAM/DDR4/html/listings/1463484198294?lk=12626&sort=PRICE&order=ASC&hideFilter=false&showFilter=false&filter_2728=131072.0