Hi Again, On 9/2/21 10:46 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 9/2/21 9:01 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >> >> Hans, >> >>> So it looks like we actually need to disable NCQ for Samsung 860/870 >>> devices when the SATA controller has a vendor-id of PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI >>> rather then AMD. >> >> That's another great data point! >> >> I wonder if there actually is a Samsung problem (given that these drives >> work fine on other controllers). Or if it is just the queued trim >> handling that's broken on 1002:4391 controllers from ATI. >> >> When I originally experimented with queued trim I had systems I could >> not get to work. But queued trim worked fine when the same drives were >> connected to more modern chipsets (note that this was "did not work at >> all" as opposed to "randomly corrupting data"). >> >> Do we have any evidence at all of queued trim working with non-Samsung >> drives on these controllers? Not sure how many modern SATA drives >> actually implement this feature. Maybe the reason we see Samsung drives >> in the bug reports is due to a combination of popularity and the fact >> that these drives actually implement queued trim support. > > The Samsung 860 / 870 series causing issues when queued trim support > is enabled are quite wide-spread, covering many different controller > models from all well known controller vendors (Intel, Asmedia, Marvell > and AMD). So disabling queued-trim support definitely is the right > thing to do (and we should have done so a long time ago, I am to > blame for this not being done sooner). > > As for your theory that it is really a problem with the controller > and not the the SSDs, I honestly do not know, but I doubt it, > there are no such reports with any other vendor's SSD or newer > Samsung models, so this seems unlikely. 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. Regards, Hans
