On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 12:22:05PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> queued trim, not even a prototype. I went out and bought a 840 EVO this
> morning because the general lazyweb opinion seemed to indicate that this
> drive supports queued trim. Well, it doesn't. At least not in the 120GB
> versio
On Mar 16, 2014, at 12:06 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>
> Mmmh, so now I'm confused.
>
> See this:
>
> === START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
> Device Model: INTEL SSDSC2BW180A3L
> Serial Number:CVCV215200XU180EGN
> LU WWN Device Id: 5 001517 bb28c5317
> Firmware Version: LE1i
> User Capacity
> "Chris" == Chris Samuel writes:
Chris> It looks like drives that do support it can be detected with the
Chris> kernel helper function ata_fpdma_dsm_supported() defined in
Chris> include/linux/libata.h.
Chris> I wonder if it would be possible to use that knowledge to extend
Chris> the smart
> "Chris" == Chris Samuel writes:
Chris> SATA Version is: SATA 3.0, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 6.0 Gb/s)
Chris> Of course that's what the drive is reporting it supports, I'm not
Chris> sure whether that's the result of what has been negotiated
Chris> between the controller and drive or purely what t
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:26:27AM +, Duncan wrote:
> Chris Samuel posted on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 17:48:56 +1100 as excerpted:
>
> > $ sudo smartctl --identify /dev/sdb | fgrep 'Trim bit in DATA SET
> > MANAGEMENT'
> > 169 0 1 Trim bit in DATA SET MANAGEMENT command
> > supported
On 15/03/14 22:26, Duncan wrote:
Either that or that feature bit simply indicates trim support, not NCQ
trim support.
You're quite right, I outsmarted myself by noticing at the fact that the
kernel tests for ATA_LOG_NCQ_SEND_RECV_DSM_TRIM and unsets that for
drives that don't support NCQ DSM
Chris Samuel posted on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 17:48:56 +1100 as excerpted:
> $ sudo smartctl --identify /dev/sdb | fgrep 'Trim bit in DATA SET
> MANAGEMENT'
> 169 0 1 Trim bit in DATA SET MANAGEMENT command
> supported
> $
>
> If that command returns nothing then it's not reported as
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 21:21:16 -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:46:09PM +, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:57:41 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>
>> > So right now I'm afraid we don't have a good way for a user to
>> > determine whether a device suppo
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 04:25:05 PM Chris Samuel wrote:
> I wonder if it would be possible to use that knowledge to extend the
> smartctl's --identify functionality to report this?
After reading the SATA 3.1 spec I believe that smartctl *can* indicate if a
drive claims to support SATA 3.1 NCQ TRIM,
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:57:41 PM Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> The fact that the drive reports compliance with a certain version of
> SATA does not in any way imply that it implements all commands defined
> in that specification.
It looks like drives that do support it can be detected with the kerne
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:46:09PM +, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:57:41 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>
> > So right now I'm afraid we don't have a good way for a user to determine
> > whether a device supports queued trims or not.
>
> Mount with discard, unpack kerne
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 06:33:24 PM Chris Samuel wrote:
> I *think* you want smartctl -i instead, and look for the field that says
> something like:
>
> ATA Version is: ATA8-ACS, ACS-2 T13/2015-D revision 3
Late night, cut and pasted the wrong line of output, mine says:
SATA Version is: SATA 3.
On Mar 13, 2014, at 11:17 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:39:02PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:33:50AM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
discard is, except on the very latest hardware, a sync
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:57:41 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> So right now I'm afraid we don't have a good way for a user to determine
> whether a device supports queued trims or not.
Mount with discard, unpack kernel tree, sync, rm -rf tree.
If it takes several seconds, you have sync discard,
> "Marc" == Marc MERLIN writes:
Marc,
Marc> So I have Sata 3.1, that's great news, it means I can keep using
Marc> discard without worrying about performance and hangs
The fact that the drive reports compliance with a certain version of
SATA does not in any way imply that it implements all
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:07:54PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Marc MERLIN posted on Thu, 13 Mar 2014 22:17:50 -0700 as excerpted:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:39:02PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mar 13, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:33:5
Marc MERLIN posted on Thu, 13 Mar 2014 22:17:50 -0700 as excerpted:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:39:02PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:33:50AM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> >> discard is, except on the very late
Hi Marc,
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:17:50 PM Marc MERLIN wrote:
> I'm not sure I'm seeing this, which field is that?
I *think* you want smartctl -i instead, and look for the field that says
something like:
ATA Version is: ATA8-ACS, ACS-2 T13/2015-D revision 3
So if my understanding is correct t
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:39:02 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
> smartctl -a or -x will tell you what SATA revision is in place. The queued
> trim support is in SATA Rev 3.1. I'm not certain if this requires only the
> drive to support that revision level, or both controller and drive.
Both I'd say as I bel
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:39:02PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:33:50AM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> >> discard is, except on the very latest hardware, a synchronous command
> >> (it's a limitation of the SATA stand
On Mar 13, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:33:50AM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> discard is, except on the very latest hardware, a synchronous command
>> (it's a limitation of the SATA standard), and therefore results in
>> very very poor performance.
>
> Interes
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:33:50AM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> discard is, except on the very latest hardware, a synchronous command
> (it's a limitation of the SATA standard), and therefore results in
> very very poor performance.
Interesting. How do I know if a given SSD will hang on discard?
Is
22 matches
Mail list logo
