Fedora 26 Planning To Enable TRIM/Discard On Encrypted Disks

[torsionbar28]

Also I'd like to argue that SATA is not really the bottleneck you think it is. Random 4k writes are about the same, whether you use SATA or NVMe. NVMe has a distinct advantage in sequential operations, but on a home computer you don't enough of those to matter. And if you do them enough on a NVMe drive, it will heat up and throttle. Imho, most of the NVMe advantage is only on paper, as far as typical home usage is concerned.

Fair enough, I really haven't done in depth performance comparisons. Since personally I don't upgrade hardware very often, I was more concerned about buying in during a transition period and getting stuck with the "old" interface. When SATA was new, I remember all the review sites said there was no compelling reason to switch to it from PATA. Of course that quickly changed and PATA has faded into obscurity.

On another note, instead of running that many VMs, maybe you could try docker images (on SSD) and point the storage folders to storage you're more comfortable with?

I like the idea, I haven't gotten into Docker just yet but seems like a powerful tool. Once 10Gb Ethernet starts finding its way into consumer stuff, probably in the next year or two, It would be nice to move my bulk data to an iSCSI server in the basement and get it out of the desktop workstation altogether.

[pal666]

Also I'd like to argue that SATA is not really the bottleneck you think it is. Random 4k writes are about the same, whether you use SATA or NVMe.

i checked one site, highest sata 4kb iops is 90k, nvme is 290k which obviously can't fit in sata bandwidth. they can't be the same because sata has high cpu overhead per request(because who cares with 10ms seek times), which was specifically targeted by nvme

[pal666]

Most consumer grade SSD's are rated for 120 TB (or less) of lifetime writes, and come with short 1 or 2 year warranties. A quality enterprise SATA HDD like a Western Digital RE4 is rated for 550 TB per year, with a 5 year warranty. No comparison there, the HDD is far superior to the consumer SSD in this metric. I run a lot of VM's on my workstation for testing and development, and I've measured my average daily writes at around 80 GB, which will wear out a consumer SSD in no time.

you obviously got that 120tb number from 240gb ssd, which means 500 full writes(it's not that bad, some are 333). so 500 full writes for 5 years lifetime only requires to write it once per 3.65 days, i.e. for 80gb daily writes you need 292gb ssd. see, it's not "in no time", but "never"

Yes there are enterprise SSD's out there that provide enhanced durability and longer warranty, but they cost an arm and a leg. For personal use, they aren't practical. Enterprise HDD however is cheap and affordable. Right now, I can get 2 TB enterprise HDD for $129. A 2 TB enterprise SSD is nearly $2000.

stupid comparison. you don't need 2tb enterprise ssd, you don't need any 2tb ssd. use hdd for your video archive ffs.

One final consideration is the drive interface. Right now, 2.5" consumer drives all use SATA, or if you have a very new mobo, you'll have an M.2 slot that can do NVMe. The newest SSD's are so fast, it's silly to put them on a SATA bus. But you're limited to one, or maybe two, NVMe drive interfaces. It's a transition time right now. I'm waiting for when NVMe becomes the standard, and you can hook 6 or 8 of these NVMe drives up to a regular motherboard.

nvme is just 4 lines of pcie, you can have them now if you have that much pcie lines. but i guess you don't

Hopefully by then the enterprise SSD pricing will have come way down, and that'll be the sweet spot for me to buy in.

ok, so you put some stupid constraints on you and will be suffering from them for several years. keep us posted

[Zan Lynx]

It's a great question, there are a number of reasons. One is write durability. Most consumer grade SSD's are rated for 120 TB (or less) of lifetime writes, and come with short 1 or 2 year warranties. A quality enterprise SATA HDD like a Western Digital RE4 is rated for 550 TB per year, with a 5 year warranty. No comparison there, the HDD is far superior to the consumer SSD in this metric. I run a lot of VM's on my workstation for testing and development, and I've measured my average daily writes at around 80 GB, which will wear out a consumer SSD in no time. Plus I tend to get 5 years or more of use out of my hardware before upgrading - I'm not one of those upgrade junkies that's always buying new stuff for the sake of buying new stuff.

I really, really doubt you'd ever have a problem. The lifetime write rating is a minimum. The actual lifetime is dependent on many factors, but you'll get at least the rated amount. One test ran a Samsung out to 2.5 PETABYTES before it failed. http://techreport.com/review/27909/t...heyre-all-dead

I have an 80 GB FusionIO from 2010 that has had 350 TB written to it. It's still going.

I've lost a lot more hard drives than I have SSDs. Just last week I had to replace a 4 year old 2TB WD RED because it failed btrfs scrub and SMART offline tests, and refused to rewrite the failed blocks. Worse than that, it would rewrite the blocks, they would read OK, then hours later they were bad again. And a couple of external backup drives that just failed for no reason. And a 5400 rpm laptop drive back in 2007. And a pair of 36 GB 15K Seagate SCSI drives which failed together, but luckily were under warrantee.

So far I haven't lost any SSDs, not even those OCZ Vertex drives that had such a bad reputation.

But I guess that you do run the risk that it'll go over the rated lifetime writes and you won't be able to get a warrantee replacement.

[bug77]

i checked one site, highest sata 4kb iops is 90k, nvme is 290k which obviously can't fit in sata bandwidth. they can't be the same because sata has high cpu overhead per request(because who cares with 10ms seek times), which was specifically targeted by nvme

Yeah, sites love to quote QD32 numbers, which is something you never really see unless you're running some enterprise server. It's a meaningful metric, don't get me wrong, but the larger context is also meaningful.

[aht0]

So far I haven't lost any SSDs, not even those OCZ Vertex drives that had such a bad reputation.

If you are interested in losing some, try buying Patriot Blast's..

[bug77]

If you are interested in losing some, try buying Patriot Blast's..

Me neither, but others have. And guess what? It wasn't because of wear (which theoretically renders the drive read-only so you can still retrieve your data), but some other component that completely bricked the drive. But it's not like HDDs are immune to failure. It's mostly luck.