From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Tue Feb 25 14:55:13 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 562E825D6F4 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:55:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from warlock@phouka1.phouka.net) Received: from phouka1.phouka.net (phouka1.phouka.net [107.170.196.116]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "phouka.net", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48Rhmt3JgFz4Ccn for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:55:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from warlock@phouka1.phouka.net) Received: from phouka1.phouka.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phouka1.phouka.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 01PErlix060988 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 06:53:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from warlock@phouka1.phouka.net) Received: (from warlock@localhost) by phouka1.phouka.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 01PErkXQ060987 for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 06:53:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from warlock) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 06:53:46 -0800 From: John Kennedy To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Running FreeBSD on M.2 SSD Message-ID: <20200225145346.GA42880@phouka1.phouka.net> References: <202002250115.01P1F9KX090465@mail.karels.net> <188F34DA-192C-4D44-96B5-18A7DAE8EC67@digsys.bg> <6028c786-8610-01d9-818e-6f69a2fe9645@ingresso.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6028c786-8610-01d9-818e-6f69a2fe9645@ingresso.co.uk> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48Rhmt3JgFz4Ccn X-Spamd-Bar: +++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of warlock@phouka1.phouka.net has no SPF policy when checking 107.170.196.116) smtp.mailfrom=warlock@phouka1.phouka.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [3.39 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.41)[ipnet: 107.170.192.0/18(0.63), asn: 14061(1.45), country: US(-0.05)]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-stable@freebsd.org]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.97)[0.971,0]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[phouka.net]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.81)[0.808,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[warlock@phouka.net,warlock@phouka1.phouka.net]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:14061, ipnet:107.170.192.0/18, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[warlock@phouka.net,warlock@phouka1.phouka.net]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:55:13 -0000 On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:07:48AM +0000, Pete French wrote: > I have often wondered if ZFS is more aggressive with discs, because until > very recently any solid state drive I have used ZFS on broke very quicky. ... I've always wondered if ZFS (and other snapshotting file systems) would help kill SSD disks by locking up blocks longer than other filesystems might. For example, I've got snapshot-backups going back, say, a year then those blocks that haven't changed aren't going back into the pool to be rewritten (and perhaps favored because of low write-cycle count). As the disk fills up, the blocks that aren't locked up get reused more and more, leading to extra wear on them. Eventually one of those will get to the point of erroring out. Personally, I just size generously but that isn't always an option for everybody.