From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Werner Fischer Subject: Re: Software RAID and TRIM Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:13:42 +0200 Message-ID: <1311164022.2031.0.camel@werner-t410> References: <4E235984.2070704@5t9.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 15:19 +0100, Tom De Mulder wrote: > In case people are interested, I ran more benchmarks. The impact of T= RIM=20 > on an over-provisioned drive is remarkable: a 25% performance loss wh= en=20 > using Postmark. >=20 > Because this isn't really on-topic for the MD mailing list, I've put = it=20 > somewhere else: >=20 > http://tdm27.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/some-solid-state-drive-benchmar= ks/ >=20 > My next goal, when I have the time, is to compare different amounts o= f=20 > over-provisioning. There is a paper from Intel "Over-provisioning an Intel=C2=AE SSD" (ana= lyzing X25-M 160 GB Gen.2 SSDs): http://cache-www.intel.com/cd/00/00/45/95/459555_459555.pdf On page 10 of this Intel presentation they mention that a spare area >27% of native capacity has diminishing returns for such an SSD: http://maltiel-consulting.com/Enterprise_Data_Integrity_Increasing_Endu= rance.pdf Regards, Werner --=20 : Werner Fischer : Technology Specialist : Thomas-Krenn.AG | The server-experts : http://www.thomas-krenn.com | http://www.thomas-krenn.com/wiki -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html