From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Fri Jul 22 20:10:03 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A5F0BA2B1E for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 20:10:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eborisch@gmail.com) Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A1FB1E5E for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 20:10:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eborisch@gmail.com) Received: by mail-oi0-x234.google.com with SMTP id l65so177676457oib.1 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:10:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KgqJNkbhq7KfTIpRGRUTOG20iaECmFkbBg7ckGSsKAw=; b=vggViVePl6aU2Y15kCqhIHpd5VhpD7/Y1J5BLsbq93Nf22+A8chHLVP/n88yDySrye 829voE80bRFZVfAfUO843aOGlhp/CYoGNixk5PmmppreGcI7mEpMzXYC2n6lfNwVDUZb tgkcVvo+ZOzGJqJxkh6eCcL7XttcrV7IpK+2NnJDpiTCBG/dy98RNSI1PwLEzTlgBh3K fraKCH1KEmROWB8r7U9YgklEjavlghraBDgBYw8DxFs0LujowvLyFbzlI5FEGcqLWUDy 36nwFtWaQewaZzQYM1cQwxD+2WBY+wCp6jmD1Tq3F6kTumgPY4yOmrE9xtHUXiXRkT+W LSQg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KgqJNkbhq7KfTIpRGRUTOG20iaECmFkbBg7ckGSsKAw=; b=NS/cHEZiN53nYJxjy+SvGzV7iKbAnAktLGGW5pioZsKynIoD/YJoCCEUIVGFuWDCwl PTm7eDmwH6DcUndkpgjjONCFMbvPxOF9+6ViLHh7mwvvsTRJOGDg9whQNn05NkSTPu0b wOz73ar2WF8f1Dtq+/rEPv/aIUWUMhYnGW96w7Oy7/kraeeqnCbg5CikW3WF/TfbiPra QHCSH5YtnqTnpvFeT5hXA1ZdInZIHLmIqKQ8D83WoAn8cc4ICVX1K1usKFWFdJRjUaN5 ezsnSLhDxqEDtn/z+SgjHnsNapDY9Y+luBBGxYMKE87apRfhwBgFaUfuo2FNZ368CCGS oDEw== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoout8KT8mQY0CGXVWDh6Z4e2NheufbARoIvvosOhpKDu3yf6m3KgT0GAw7FWNJWZ2IC/Brc/8DIOirroiTg== X-Received: by 10.157.14.5 with SMTP id c5mr3301162otc.55.1469218201427; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:10:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.66.133 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:10:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Eric A. Borisch" Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:10:00 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ZFS, SSD and encryption To: Karl Denninger Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 20:10:03 -0000 On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Karl Denninger wrote: > On 7/22/2016 14:02, Eric A. Borisch wrote: >> On Friday, July 22, 2016, Karl Denninger > > wrote: >> >> >> On 7/22/2016 07:48, Nikos Kastanas wrote: >> > I have a Lenovo X220 laptop running FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE with >> ZFS and >> > encryption on a plain HDD. I am considering buying a Samsung Pro >> 850 SSD to >> > boost performance but I am not sure if TRIM and ZFS+Encryption >> work well >> > together. After some research online, I found *this page* >> > which states the >> > following: >> > >> > *Note: * >> > ZFS TRIM may not work with all configurations, such as a ZFS >> filesystem on >> > a GELI-backed device. >> > >> > From what I can understand from the above note, I should not use the >> > encryption option when installing FreeBSD with ZFS on an SSD. >> TRIM will not >> > work correctly and therefore the SSD performace will be impacted. >> Meh. Simply not true. >> >> >> It will not work on 10.3, but will work (as Karl demonstrates) on >> 11.x. Here's the commit to head enabling it: >> >> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=286444 >> >> And here's what is in 10.3 (BIO_DELETE case returns EOPNOTSUPP): >> >> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/releng/10.3/sys/geom/eli/g_eli.c?revision=296373&view=markup#l319 >> >> - Eric > > Note that the system in question (from which the stats were pulled) was > on 10.2 for an extended period of time, with SSDs, and with > Geli-encrypted disks. It was fine with no performance issues; whether > there is a problem with earlier releases has much to do with the disks > in question. > > In the case of the Intel 730s it works perfectly well even though TRIM > is not passed through in that case. Fair, but the original question was if "TRIM will not work correctly and therefore the SSD performace will be impacted" -- and the answer is that TRIM+GELI does not "work correctly" for 10.3, but it does for 11.x. This is only a performance (and not "is my data safe") statement. As you allude to, how much this impacts performance depends on the drive, partitioning / provisioning, and workload. - Eric