From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ee0-f50.google.com ([74.125.83.50]:58512 "EHLO mail-ee0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750778AbaAWWXj (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:23:39 -0500 Received: by mail-ee0-f50.google.com with SMTP id d17so653528eek.9 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:23:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.7.7] (a207.net131.okay.pl. [85.28.131.207]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o13sm43825821eex.19.2014.01.23.14.23.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:23:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52E19667.6090005@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:23:35 +0100 From: KC MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Options for SSD - autodefrag etc? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I was wondering about whether using options like "autodefrag" and "inode_cache" on SSDs. On one hand, one always hears that defragmentation of SSD is a no-no, does that apply to BTRFS's autodefrag? Also, just recently, I heard something similar about "inode_cache". On the other hand, Arch BTRFS wiki recommends to use both options on SSDs http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Btrfs#Mount_options So to clear things up, I ask at the source where people should know best. Does using those options on SSDs gives any benefits and causes non-negligible increase in SSD wear?