Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #67937 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tom Evans <tomevans9890@yahoo.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-12-28 21:54 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-01-02 20:55 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 95 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
When will Yosemite be safe to use? Tom Evans <tomevans9890@yahoo.ca> - 2014-12-28 21:54 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-12-28 23:58 -0700
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Tom Evans <tomevans9890@yahoo.ca> - 2014-12-28 23:31 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-29 09:00 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-30 13:45 -0600
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-29 04:34 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-12-30 00:37 +1300
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-29 15:12 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-29 17:51 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-29 22:58 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-29 18:24 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-29 23:34 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 15:05 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-31 01:08 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-30 20:17 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-12-29 23:26 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-29 23:09 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-29 18:26 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-29 18:32 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-29 23:36 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-29 18:55 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-29 19:08 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 15:08 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-30 20:03 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-31 01:45 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-12-30 22:29 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-31 00:58 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-31 13:56 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-31 16:50 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-31 22:10 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-31 17:44 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-01 00:16 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-01 01:07 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-01 16:10 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2015-01-01 22:04 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-02 03:24 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-31 00:56 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-31 14:01 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-30 00:25 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-29 21:07 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-30 03:32 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-30 09:41 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-30 16:42 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-29 21:15 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-30 03:37 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-30 02:36 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-29 11:53 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-12-30 00:37 +1300
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? David Fritzinger <email@domain.com> - 2014-12-29 11:40 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-12-31 02:18 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-29 23:28 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-29 15:11 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Tom Evans <tomevans9890@yahoo.ca> - 2014-12-29 08:43 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-29 16:59 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-12-29 09:22 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2014-12-29 12:32 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-29 21:13 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-12-29 10:41 -0700
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2014-12-28 23:51 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-29 08:59 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Tom Evans <tomevans9890@yahoo.ca> - 2014-12-29 06:34 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Tom Evans <tomevans9890@yahoo.ca> - 2014-12-29 06:45 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-12-29 10:31 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-12-29 09:24 -0700
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Tom Evans <tomevans9890@yahoo.ca> - 2014-12-29 08:48 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-12-29 10:42 -0700
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Tom Evans <tomevans9890@yahoo.ca> - 2014-12-29 11:57 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-29 20:09 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2014-12-29 12:55 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-12-29 17:51 -0700
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-29 17:53 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-12-29 12:59 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-29 23:14 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-29 17:47 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-29 22:56 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-29 23:16 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-12-29 18:03 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-12-30 18:41 +1300
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-01-01 14:47 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-01 17:53 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-29 23:11 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Tom Evans <tomevans9890@yahoo.ca> - 2014-12-29 18:54 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Tom Evans <tomevans9890@yahoo.ca> - 2014-12-31 08:23 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-31 17:43 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-12-29 09:16 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-12-29 10:05 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-29 15:09 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Piso Mojado <conserje@trapeador.net> - 2014-12-29 17:42 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Tom Evans <tomevans9890@yahoo.ca> - 2014-12-29 18:57 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Piso Mojado <conserje@trapeador.net> - 2014-12-30 08:41 -0500
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? "Mr. Strat" <mrstrat@nospam.gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 11:27 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-01-01 15:52 -0600
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-01 23:37 +0000
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-02 17:50 -0800
Re: When will Yosemite be safe to use? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-02 20:55 -0500
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-29 18:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54a1e9e8$0$46496$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #67987 |
On 14-12-29 18:36, Jolly Roger wrote: > That's your opinion. My opinion is the decision makes good business > sense. TRIM isn't even necessary for many SSDs that use alternative > methods of garbage collection and so on. This means you do not understand what TRIM is about and how file systems work. No matter what file system is used on a disk, without TRIM support, the disk has no knowledge of whether a block is free or not, so the disk cannot self-manage zapping blocks to 0 to make them ready to be re-used. It still works, but is far less efficient and increases disk wear for any/all SSDs because current flash technoogy is the same for all drives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-29 19:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <291220141908482307%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #67988 |
In article <54a1e9e8$0$46496$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > That's your opinion. My opinion is the decision makes good business > > sense. TRIM isn't even necessary for many SSDs that use alternative > > methods of garbage collection and so on. > > > This means you do not understand what TRIM is about and how file systems > work. No matter what file system is used on a disk, without TRIM > support, the disk has no knowledge of whether a block is free or not, so > the disk cannot self-manage zapping blocks to 0 to make them ready to be > re-used. depends on the ssd. some don't need trim and some work with apple's trim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-30 15:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m7v0nh$lau$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67989 |
On 2014-12-30 00:08:48 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said: > In article <54a1e9e8$0$46496$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a@news.astraweb.com>, JF > Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >>> That's your opinion. My opinion is the decision makes good business >>> sense. TRIM isn't even necessary for many SSDs that use alternative >>> methods of garbage collection and so on. >> >> >> This means you do not understand what TRIM is about and how file systems >> work. No matter what file system is used on a disk, without TRIM >> support, the disk has no knowledge of whether a block is free or not, so >> the disk cannot self-manage zapping blocks to 0 to make them ready to be >> re-used. > > depends on the ssd. some don't need trim and some work with apple's > trim. From OWC: "If you have an OWC SSD, though, you don’t need TRIM. The SandForce controller in our SSDs takes care of this “garbage collection” as well as performs various other tasks that keep your drive running at optimal speed, without the drop-off that you see with other brands. Especially note page two of this performance testing expert’s report where he feels so strongly about TRIM’s inefficiency that he calls call it “half-baked”…and that’s the kid friendly version of the phrase." "In fact, enabling TRIM could actually hurt the performance and reliability of your OWC SSD, rather than help it. As OWC customer Scott Gosling recently said in an email to us: "Our in-house testing has also shown that the TRIM Enabler hack has proven to be unreliable. So bottom line, we highly recommend not using TRIM when using OWC SSDs; all you need is what’s already inside." http://blog.macsales.com/11051-to-trim-or-not-to-trim-owc-has-the-answer -- Q: How do you know when <NoBody@nowhere.com> is lying? A: Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> fingers are moving. <NoBody@nowhere.com> reveals himself to be a sockpuppet of sickpuppy Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&A=0&MSGI=%3Cm3jcte%24pq1%241%40dont-email.me%3E
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-30 20:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54a34b69$0$43027$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #68020 |
On 14-12-30 15:08, FPP wrote: > "If you have an OWC SSD, though, you don’t need TRIM. The SandForce > controller in our SSDs takes care of this “garbage collection” as well > as performs various other tasks that keep your drive running at optimal > speed, Any vendor whose disks Apple does not support will make those claims since they don.t want to admit that TRIM is superior but cannot be enabled. The chips all work the same way. The garbage collection is simply the remapping of blocks when one block in a page needs to be rewritten so the whole page need to be zapped first. When all those other blocks have been marked as free (with the TRIM), then this remapping is not done and whole page can be zapped right away. When on a brand new disk that has been freshly loaded, TRIM won't make a difference initially since any new file gets allocated to never-used pages which can be written without any remapping. Hence those marketing tests that say it makes no difference. Wait till the file system starts to re-use previously used blocks and you start to see a difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-31 01:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cgh2qjF99thU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68023 |
On 2014-12-31, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-12-30 15:08, FPP wrote: > >> "If you have an OWC SSD, though, you don’t need TRIM. The SandForce >> controller in our SSDs takes care of this “garbage collection” as well >> as performs various other tasks that keep your drive running at optimal >> speed, > > Any vendor whose disks Apple does not support will make those claims > since they don.t want to admit that TRIM is superior but cannot be enabled. Repeating it doesn't make it any more true. The world is moving on to better things than TRIM. > The chips all work the same way. All SSDs do not work the same way. > The garbage collection is simply the > remapping of blocks when one block in a page needs to be rewritten so > the whole page need to be zapped first. When all those other blocks > have been marked as free (with the TRIM), then this remapping is not > done and whole page can be zapped right away. > > When on a brand new disk that has been freshly loaded, TRIM won't make a > difference initially since any new file gets allocated to never-used > pages which can be written without any remapping. Hence those marketing > tests that say it makes no difference. > > Wait till the file system starts to re-use previously used blocks and > you start to see a difference. As you have already been told, as time goes on, more and more SSDs are being designed with internal firmware that effectively handles the problems that TRIM used to address. And real world experience shows that with those drives, TRIM is unnecessary. I have a four year old SSD that has never had TRIM enabled, and has been filled up to within 100 MB *twice* during those four years, and performance is just fine. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-30 22:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54a36d81$0$4548$2c56edd9@usenetrocket.com> |
| In reply to | #68027 |
On 12/30/14 8:45 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: > As you have already been told, as time goes on, more and more SSDs are > being designed with internal firmware that effectively handles the > problems that TRIM used to address. And real world experience shows that > with those drives, TRIM is unnecessary. I have a four year old SSD that > has never had TRIM enabled, and has been filled up to within 100 MB > *twice* during those four years, and performance is just fine. My experience: I got a "late-2012" Mini in January of 2013. Been booting and running it from an externally-mounted SSD since day 1. SSD is mounted in a plugable.com "lay-flat" USB3/SATA dock with UASP. Back in March, I swapped out the SSDs. Newer one is a Crucial m500 240gb. Can't enable TRIM because it's mounted via USB. On March 13, I benchmarked it with Blackmagic Disk Tester. Read: 275.6 Write: 431.7 On November 2, I retested it: Read: 271.4 Write: 431.2 A slight loss of performance, but not even noticeable. Who needs TRIM?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-31 00:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54a3907b$0$22504$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #68029 |
On 14-12-30 22:29, John Albert wrote: > Back in March, I swapped out the SSDs. > Newer one is a Crucial m500 240gb. > Can't enable TRIM because it's mounted via USB. TRIM a SATA function. When you mount a disk on USB, it uses the USB disk access protocol, not SATA, so there is no way for the OS to send TRIM commands.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-31 13:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cgidjuFjmgoU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68032 |
On 2014-12-31, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-12-30 22:29, John Albert wrote: > >> Back in March, I swapped out the SSDs. >> Newer one is a Crucial m500 240gb. >> Can't enable TRIM because it's mounted via USB. > > > TRIM a SATA function. When you mount a disk on USB, it uses the USB disk > access protocol, not SATA, so there is no way for the OS to send TRIM > commands. And yet his SSD is performing just fine. TRIM is not universally necessary. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-31 16:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54a46fc5$0$19480$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #68034 |
On 14-12-31 08:56, Jolly Roger wrote: > And yet his SSD is performing just fine. TRIM is not universally > necessary. I never said TRIM was necessary. The garbage collection allows an SDD to appear like a normal disk in terms of how the OS interacts with it. However, it is not optimal and TRIM paliates the write amplification problem. It may not be noticed by you because SSD performance is still above that of rust coated spinning platters. But write amplification does slow down SSDs well below what they are capable of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-31 22:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cgjajhFrc1nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68044 |
On 2014-12-31, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-12-31 08:56, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> And yet his SSD is performing just fine. TRIM is not universally >> necessary. > > I never said TRIM was necessary. The garbage collection allows an SDD to > appear like a normal disk in terms of how the OS interacts with it. > > However, it is not optimal and TRIM paliates the write amplification > problem. It may not be noticed by you because SSD performance is still > above that of rust coated spinning platters. But write amplification > does slow down SSDs well below what they are capable of. Not with SSDs designed with built-in management. You're just plain wrong and refuse to admit it. Instead you say foolish things like "Anandtech fell for marketing hype" and so on. More fool you. : ) -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-31 17:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54a47c4c$0$27591$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #68046 |
On 14-12-31 17:10, Jolly Roger wrote: > Not with SSDs designed with built-in management. You're just plain wrong > and refuse to admit it. Instead you say foolish things like "Anandtech > fell for marketing hype" and so on. More fool you. : ) Funny how you refuse to read that Anandtech article to the end where they admit that write amplification, caused by garbage collection is an issue solved by TRIM and refuse to provide an explanation for Anantech stating Apple used those fancy controllers that don't need TRIM and fail to explain why Apple introduced support for TRIM later on. Again, read about write amplification. Just because something is not necessary does not mean that it isn't beneficial. TRIM isn't necessary, but it is beneficial. And this is why Apple implemented it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-01 00:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cgjhvoFrc1nU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68050 |
On 2014-12-31, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-12-31 17:10, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> Not with SSDs designed with built-in management. You're just plain wrong >> and refuse to admit it. Instead you say foolish things like "Anandtech >> fell for marketing hype" and so on. More fool you. : ) > > Funny how you refuse to read that Anandtech article to the end I read it completely multiple times. Like a spoiled kid who has lost an argument, you just refuse to admit that TRIM isn't anywhere near as important as you make it out to be. You're the one looking foolish here, while the rest of us happily use our SSDs with Mac OS X without TRIM. : ) > where > they admit that write amplification, caused by garbage collection is an > issue solved by TRIM and refuse to provide an explanation for Anantech > stating Apple used those fancy controllers that don't need TRIM and fail > to explain why Apple introduced support for TRIM later on. Again, read > about write amplification. > > Just because something is not necessary does not mean that it isn't > beneficial. TRIM isn't necessary, but it is beneficial. And this is why > Apple implemented it. Anyone with a clue knows that Apple implemented it only for specific *makes* and *models* of SSD - not for all of them. You're full of shit if you think otherwise. And no matter how hard you try, no matter how many times you say it, the fact is the lack of TRIM support in Mac OS X isn't causing problems for lots of SSDs. Many of us know this to be the case because we've been using SSDs long enough to see it with our own eyes. And now I'm done arguing with you about this. You're being a huge idiot about it, and I have better things to do. Enjoy your petty little last word party. : ) -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-01 01:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54a4e406$0$44182$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #68059 |
On 14-12-31 19:16, Jolly Roger wrote: > Anyone with a clue knows that Apple implemented it only for specific > *makes* and *models* of SSD - not for all of them. And the SSDs for which Apple enables TRIM also include the "garbage collection" which all SSDs have since it is a pre-requisite for an SSD that is used as a disk drive. TRIN is in addition to the garbage collection, not a replacement for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-01 16:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cgl9rvFbba8U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68064 |
On 2015-01-01, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-12-31 19:16, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> Anyone with a clue knows that Apple implemented it only for specific >> *makes* and *models* of SSD - not for all of them. > > And the SSDs for which Apple enables TRIM also include the "garbage > collection" which all SSDs have since it is a pre-requisite for an SSD > that is used as a disk drive. > > TRIN is in addition to the garbage collection, not a replacement for it. And it's inessential. You're just trolling. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-01 22:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54a60abc$0$9638$2c56edd9@usenetrocket.com> |
| In reply to | #68032 |
On 12/31/14 12:58 AM, JF Mezei wrote: > TRIM a SATA function. When you mount a disk on USB, it uses the USB disk > access protocol, not SATA, so there is no way for the OS to send TRIM > commands. I'm wondering if the upcoming USB 3.1 protocol will fix this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 03:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cgmhahFln2mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68092 |
On 2015-01-02, John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote: > On 12/31/14 12:58 AM, JF Mezei wrote: >> TRIM a SATA function. When you mount a disk on USB, it uses the USB disk >> access protocol, not SATA, so there is no way for the OS to send TRIM >> commands. > > I'm wondering if the upcoming USB 3.1 protocol will fix this? It doesn't need fixing. TRIM is being replaced with better options. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-31 00:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54a3900f$0$22504$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #68027 |
On 14-12-30 20:45, Jolly Roger wrote: > All SSDs do not work the same way. The underlying flash technology does. You neez to zap a whole page (multiple blocks) to be able to rewrite a single block in that page. This means reading the other blocks and rewriting them elsewhere before you zap the page and rewrite the 1 block. That process is called "garbage collection". > As you have already been told, as time goes on, more and more SSDs are > being designed with internal firmware that effectively handles the > problems that TRIM used to address. So, please explain to me how the SSD knows that a block is free and need not be rewritten elsewhere to preserve it when the page the block is located in is about to be zapped so another block in that page can be updated ? All the articles you have pointed to and your own arguments simply state that the SSD disk can worth without TRIM. Nobody is contesting this. What you have not explained is how, without TRIM, your theoretical disk controllers are able to eliminate write amplification and how they can magically know whether the OS thinks is block is allocated to a file or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-31 14:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cgiduhFjmgoU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68031 |
On 2014-12-31, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-12-30 20:45, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> All SSDs do not work the same way. > > The underlying flash technology does. You neez to zap a whole page > (multiple blocks) to be able to rewrite a single block in that page. > This means reading the other blocks and rewriting them elsewhere before > you zap the page and rewrite the 1 block. > > That process is called "garbage collection". The point you seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp is the underlying technology doesn't make a difference with regard to whether TRIM is needed, since manufacturers have been including built-in garbage collection functionality. >> As you have already been told, as time goes on, more and more SSDs are >> being designed with internal firmware that effectively handles the >> problems that TRIM used to address. > > So, please explain to me how the SSD knows that a block is free and need > not be rewritten elsewhere to preserve it when the page the block is > located in is about to be zapped so another block in that page can be > updated ? Ask the manufacturer. All I care about is that it works. : ) > All the articles you have pointed to and your own arguments simply state > that the SSD disk can worth without TRIM. Nobody is contesting this. Nope. It has been shown that some SSDs *perform well* without TRIM. And yet you foolishly continue to argue as if that's not the case. > What you have not explained is how, without TRIM, your theoretical disk The SSD that I have been using in my Mac Pro for four years now without TRIM enabled is *not* theoretical. > controllers are able to eliminate write amplification and how they can > magically know whether the OS thinks is block is allocated to a file or not. No magic is involved. You're acting like an idiot, and I'm done with you. Enjoy your willful ignorance, fool. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-30 00:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cge9o9Fhm00U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #67988 |
On 2014-12-29, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-12-29 18:36, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> That's your opinion. My opinion is the decision makes good business >> sense. TRIM isn't even necessary for many SSDs that use alternative >> methods of garbage collection and so on. > > This means you do not understand what TRIM is about and how file systems > work. Sure it does. Keep telling yourself that. ; ) > No matter what file system is used on a disk, without TRIM > support, the disk has no knowledge of whether a block is free or not, so > the disk cannot self-manage zapping blocks to 0 to make them ready to be > re-used. > > It still works, but is far less efficient and increases disk wear for > any/all SSDs because current flash technoogy is the same for all drives. Nope, not with all SSDs. Newer designs have built-in software that effectively negates the need for TRIM. TRIM is a thing of the past - and you're living in it. Again, you need to do your homework. Just a couple examples: <http://www.anandtech.com/show/4010/kingston-ssdnow-v-plus-100-review> <http://blog.macsales.com/11051-to-trim-or-not-to-trim-owc-has-the-answer> Good luck convincing us Anandtech et al doesn't understand what TRIM is about or how file systems work. ; ) -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-29 21:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54a208d6$0$32891$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #67990 |
On 14-12-29 19:25, Jolly Roger wrote: > <http://www.anandtech.com/show/4010/kingston-ssdnow-v-plus-100-review> Garbage collection is standard: it just means that when you wire to block 0 of a page, it will automatically rewrite and remap blocks 1 to 7 to another page and zap the whole page containing block 0 so it can be rewritten. Read the last paragraph about write amplification. This is what TRIM is all about. You and anantech are taken in by marketing. Apple may use those controlers but it still enables TRIM. That should say something about garbage collection not doing the full job. The disk cannot know whether a block is in use or part of the free list. With trim enabled, it marks a block as being free, so the controllers knows it nee not preserve or remap that blocks when it zaps a page to allow that page to be written to. part of free list so when another block (or that block) on a page needs to be rewritten, the controllers knows it does not need to remap the free blocks to another page while zapping this page. Without TRIM, the controller preserves blocks are are not in use and need not be preserved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web