Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 06:53:46 -0800 From: John Kennedy <warlock@phouka.net> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Running FreeBSD on M.2 SSD Message-ID: <20200225145346.GA42880@phouka1.phouka.net> In-Reply-To: <6028c786-8610-01d9-818e-6f69a2fe9645@ingresso.co.uk> References: <CAP4Gn9DFAoQtq6NP4hZ-Jq=ddnhp7Bzc_X%2BSce2FPVWn6kjASg@mail.gmail.com> <202002250115.01P1F9KX090465@mail.karels.net> <CAP4Gn9CqCSk5Lof_-05j1S0EWmTdB_HRfOe5zVig5khf7wJ0ow@mail.gmail.com> <188F34DA-192C-4D44-96B5-18A7DAE8EC67@digsys.bg> <6028c786-8610-01d9-818e-6f69a2fe9645@ingresso.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200225145346.GA42880>