From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sander Subject: Re: SSD Optimizations Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:39:05 +0100 Message-ID: <20100311143905.GA20569@attic.humilis.net> References: <4B97F7CE.4030405@bobich.net> <4B9829B1.1020706@bobich.net> <20100311073853.GA26129@attic.humilis.net> <201003111159.58081.hka@qbs.com.pl> <20100311123103.34246e95.skraw@ithnet.com> Reply-To: sander@humilis.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Hubert Kario , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Gordan Bobic To: Stephan von Krawczynski Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100311123103.34246e95.skraw@ithnet.com> List-ID: Stephan von Krawczynski wrote (ao): > Honestly I would just drop the idea of an SSD option simply because the > vendors implement all kinds of neat strategies in their devices. So in the end > you cannot really tell if the option does something constructive and not > destructive in combination with a SSD controller. My understanding of the ssd mount option is also that the fs doens't try to do all kinds of smart (and potential expensive) things which make sense for rotating media to reduce seeks and the like. Sander -- Humilis IT Services and Solutions http://www.humilis.net