From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Dec  8 15:54:41 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E2710656A9
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Wed,  8 Dec 2010 15:54:41 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from mj@feral.com)
Received: from ns1.feral.com (ns1.feral.com [192.67.166.1])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3037F8FC0C
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Wed,  8 Dec 2010 15:54:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (m206-63.dsl.tsoft.com [198.144.206.63])
	by ns1.feral.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB8FSi77003086
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 07:28:44 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from mj@feral.com)
Message-ID: <4CFFA42E.3040201@feral.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:28:46 -0800
From: Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com>
Organization: Feral Software
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
References: <201012071531.oB7FVEhb047727@lurza.secnetix.de>
	<20101208152136.GG1692@garage.freebsd.pl>
In-Reply-To: <20101208152136.GG1692@garage.freebsd.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Default is to whitelist mail, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6
	(ns1.feral.com [192.67.166.1]);
	Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: TRIM support for UFS?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:54:41 -0000


> BTW. Have you actually observed any performance degradation without
> TRIM? I've similar SSDs and from what I tested it somehow can handle
> wear leveling internally. You can to TRIM entire disk using this simple
> program below, newfs it and test it. Then fill it with random data,
> newfs it again, test it and compare results.

Yes. I've seen performance degradation. It's not clear that TRIM is the 
most useful in all cases, partly because it's generally a very slow 
command and it's not quite clear how well the wear levelling algorithms 
incorporate TRIM changes.

One thing is certainly true is that if SSD drives are for caching only, 
a SECURE ERASE at each 'mount' time along with the appropriate newfs 
helps substantially.