[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq14kb24e97.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2021 23:21:52 -0400
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Kate Hsuan <hpa@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
Tor Vic <torvic9@...lbox.org>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] libata: Add ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_ON_AMD for Samsung
860 and 870 SSD.
Hans,
> I just realized that all newer Samsung models are non SATA...
>
> Still I cponsider it likely that some of the other vendors also
> implement queued trim support and there are no reports of issues
> with the other vendors' SSDs.
When I originally worked on this the only other drive that supported
queued trim was a specific controller generation from Crucial/Micron.
Since performance-sensitive workloads quickly moved to NVMe, I don't
know if implementing queued trim has been very high on the SSD
manufacturers' todo lists. FWIW, I just checked and none of the more
recent SATA SSD drives I happen to have support queued trim.
Purely anecdotal: I have a Samsung 863 which I believe is
architecturally very similar to the 860. That drive clocked over 40K
hours as my main git repo/build drive until it was retired last
fall. And it ran a queued fstrim every night.
Anyway. I am not against disabling queued trim for these drives. As far
as I'm concerned it was a feature that didn't quite get enough industry
momentum. It just irks me that we don't have a good understanding of why
it works for some and not for others...
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
Powered by blists - more mailing lists