On Mon, 11 May 2009 04:37:54 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > > Well, no one has actually implemented the low-level TRIM support yet; Iirc dwmw2 did so for some of the FTL drivers. More a curiosity than a useful device, though. > Well, no, Matthew's changes didn't do any of that, I suspect because > most SSD's, including X25-M, are expected to have a granularity size > of 1 block. It's the crazy people in the SCSI standards world who've > been pushing for granlarity sizes in the 1-4 megabyte range; as I > understand things, the granularity issue was not going to be a problem > for the ATA TRIM command. I am not sure about this part. So far Intel has been the only party to release any information about their dark-grey box. All other boxes are still solid black. And until I'm told otherwise I'd consider them to be stupid devices that use erase block size as trim granularity. Given the total lack of information, your guess is as good as mine, though. > As far as thinking that the proposal is ludicrous --- what precisely > did you find ludicrous about it? Mainly the idea that discard requests should act as barriers and instead of fixing that, you propose a lot of complexity to work around it. > The only problem with SSD's is the people who designed the ATA TRIM > command requires us to completely drian the I/O queue before issuing > it. Because of this incompetence, we need to be a bit more careful > about how we issue them. And this bit that I wasn't aware of. Such a requirement in the standard is a trainwreck indeed. Jörn -- Victory in war is not repetitious. -- Sun Tzu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
