MOTUnation.com

For those who may be concerned about using Trim on SSDs under OS X, just to follow up, a little more research (based on the link referenced by our concerned member) revealed the following:

https://blog.algolia.com/when-solid-sta ... hat-solid/

SUMMARY:
1) the issue raised by Algolia is due to a Linux kernel error
2) Linux kernel error can affect any SSD under the same operating conditions
3) Samsung has also posted a Linux kernel patch that should fix the issue

UPDATE July 17, 2015:
We have just finished a conference call with Samsung considering the failure analysis of this issue. Samsung engineering team has been able to successfully reproduce the issue with our latest provided binary.

Samsung had a concrete conclusion that the issue is not related to Samsung SSD or Algolia software but is related to the Linux kernel.

Samsung has developed a kernel patch to resolve this issue and the official statement with details will be released tomorrow, July 18 on Linux community with the Linux patch guide. Our testing code is available on GitHub.

This has been an amazing ride, thank you everyone for joining, we have arrived at the destination.

There is no suggestion I could find suggesting a Trim issues in OS X, other than an anecdotal report by an individual who appears to have extrapolated information far beyond what seems reasonable, then decided to champion the perceived threat in a manner suggesting FUD.

SSDs will function without Trim, but I continue to believe they will function better with it enabled.

Don't forget, no matter what type of drive you use, SSD or HD, Trim or no Trim, if you don't have a least two copies of your data (on at least two difference drives), you may not have your data at all. So back it up!

PS: Sorry I got sorta' worked up in my last post. I had fun writing it, though!

HCMarkus wrote:For those who may be concerned about using Trim on SSDs under OS X, just to follow up, a little more research (based on the link referenced by our concerned member) revealed the following:

https://blog.algolia.com/when-solid-sta ... hat-solid/

Dead link.

Apple's command line warning is not about Linux.


A back up of corrupted data has corrupted data. When using experimental tech like the TRIM enabler, the only reliable back up is the one that was created before enabling TRIM.

Here's that link:

https://blog.algolia.com/when-solid-sta ... hat-solid/

Yep, it's all about Linux.

A back up of corrupted data has corrupted data.

This is most certainly true. SO don't overwrite your backup copies with one that does't work right. Time Machine is cool, because it provides a continuous backup. Although I have not researched this, it seems logical that if an error was created in the original file, Time Machine would recognize the change and wold create a new backup version of the file, leaving the earlier backup unchanged.

When using experimental tech like the TRIM

Trim is a broadly accepted utilitarian function that is supported by manufacturers and used by millions of SSD owners without issue. If Trim is "experimental", so is every component in a computer, except perhaps the case, wires and power supply. /S

"Trim Enabler" is a simple piece of software produced by CIndori that allowed OS X users prior to Yosemite to turn on the existing Trim function easily without having to use Terminal commands.

Thanks for that link. It's cleared some things up for me.

Phil

TRIM is part of the Mac OS as it is Windows and UNIX. It has been for years. It is not experimental.

Although Apple blocked it on non-Apple SSDs for years, they have never explained why. I'm in the camp that believes it was to encourage customers to buy the Macs with solid state drives. Nothing has led me to believe it was anything else.

Much ado is being made about a "blocked list" Think about it. This blocked list includes all non-Apple SSDs. Well, yes, that makes sense. If you are going to block TRIM from working you have to list the ones...

The warning is clearly a "don't blame us if this doesn't work" CYA notice. Ok, Apple, we won't.

Phil O wrote:

mikehalloran wrote:Every Apple engineer I know recommends the Samsung 850 EVO and enabling TRIM.

I'm thinking of getting one of these. Any thoughts on EVO vs Pro?

Samsung really wants you to buy the Pro. It has a 10 year warranty and the tests are geared to show off its slight superiority with many tasks.

The EVO, on the other hand is rated quite conservatively and only has a 5 year warranty. It always seems to test better than advertised. It is priced less.

I installed a Pro at a client's request. Works great but I see no difference between it and the EVO in real world performance.

Ask me again in 6 years.

Seriously, guys.

I never said TRIM as a technology is experimental.

I said that Apple's TRIM implementation for HFS+ is experimental, that's why it's disabled by default, and that's why there's a warning.

mikehalloran wrote: Although Apple blocked it on non-Apple SSDs for years, they have never explained why.

Actually, they kind of have. That's the meaning of the Terminal warning.
APFS has a full, working TRIM implementation, which, according to current reports, fully supports 3rd party SSDs.

I'm certain that plans for APFS have been around for a few years, so why invest manpower in tools for a technology that they know will be soon obsolete (HFS+), when they can work on the 'real thing' instead, that is better from the ground up?

mikehalloran wrote:Ask me again in 6 years.

I'll try to remember to do that. Thanks. I think I'm going to go with the EVO.

Phil

stratology wrote:Seriously, guys.

I never said TRIM as a technology is experimental.

I said that Apple's TRIM implementation for HFS+ is experimental, that's why it's disabled by default, and that's why there's a warning.

Ok so you didn't say it and you said it—whatever floats your boat.

TRIM support has been part of the OS since Feb. 24, 2011. It was released to the public with 10.6.8 on June 23, 2011 and with 10.7 on July 1. 2011. It works quite well and there are no known issues with Apple or 3rd party SSDs.

You have have jumped to interesting and incorrect conclusions on what is now well known, I'll give you that. It was amusing but I will no longer respond to you on this subject.

mikehalloran wrote: You have have jumped to interesting and incorrect conclusions on what is now well known

I'll check out with this:

When using experimental tech like the TRIM enabler, the only reliable back up is the one that was created before enabling TRIM.

I never said TRIM as a technology is experimental.

I said that Apple's TRIM implementation for HFS+ is experimental, that's why it's disabled by default, and that's why there's a warning.

To quote the Moody Blues: "...you decide which is right, and which is an illusion." (cue orchestra)

It has been fun! Back to making noisic.