I personally wouldn't be too concerned with the TRIM capability to begin with, especially in a RAID configuration. There won't be a whole lot of performance gain since these SSDs are already very fast. Aside from that, your RAID controller is where the performance enhancements should be looked at. Are you using a RAID controller with a built-in cache? If it's an on-board RAID controller, probably not, and you won't see much performance gain by using RAID on these controllers -- just redundancy gains. I currently have an Intel-based RAID ICH10R and under all configurations of RAID 0 or 1 with two X25-E drives, the performance didn't change much from using just a single drive. I ended up buying an Adaptec card (the 5045) to see true gains. Perhaps it was a combination of the chipset and motherboard, but unless you are writing hundreds of thousands of tiny files, I don't see where your benefit for this feature would amount to much.
Personally, I feel the TRIM command defeats the purpose of wear-leveling, sacrificing lifespan for very little performance gains (there have been exceptions). Maybe there's still a significant difference for the X25-M series, but I've never used those. Anybody have links to some more information regarding TRIM benefits on the M series with the updated firmware? Other brands of SSDs wouldn't fit this topic.
Hope this helps.
Thank you for your response but I think you might not get my point. I am not too muck into performance gains. The problem is that SSD write speeds degrade as you write more data on the drive. It is no concern with NAND chips wearout it is a matter of the method that SSD's use for writing and overwriting data. You can describe it as a kind of defragmentation but it is not that simple. You should check on this article if you are not sure what is TRIM: http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&p=1.
If you do not get any performance increase with RAID0 you have obviously going wrong.
TRIM support is more likely to be solved on the RAID controller's side.
I actually do understand the issues of TRIM and SSDs fully. I've posted several times about this topic on past threads. However, I'll emphasize my point, too: The gains you get from using TRIM are minimal in real-world use. Sure, you can see slight differences by running benchmarks, but odds are the system will not operate this way in real-world conditions.
RAID benefits significantly by having a built-in cache, thus the difference between enterprise-level controllers and 'low-cost' home consumer controllers. Gaining RAID performance isn't just a matter of 'going wrong' but a matter of using the right combination of hardware. It's a proven science, not open to much theory. A RAID cache will benefit your write performance more than the TRIM will, and that's a fact of I/O, period. If you wish to wait for TRIM to be fully implemented, that's your choice, of course, but I will guarantee your wait will be rewarded with very little satisfaction, except perhaps on the cheapest of SSD components.
However, I only speak for the majority of systems operating out there. Perhaps you have a very unique situation where you're constantly writing gigabytes of data on an hourly basis to your SSDs. But, if it happens to be for your system pagefile or temporary files, perhaps an additional RAMDISK would be the next best upgrade to your system. See other posts on this page for those ideas.
william, it seems you are unawares of the multitude of mlc drives that are available do experience performance degradation w/o the sort of "cleanup" trim offers. regarding raid, i certianly notice the speed difference between using a single drive and 4 in a raid0 array, and would really like to have discard/trim support on my intel based workstation ich (which uses system ram for cache, if i'm not mistaken), which by the way offers very good performance (up to and including x4 ssd) compared to the adaptec you stated you have (i also run one, and the ich option performance is quite close). mlc drives are a bit different than the slc, and can really benefit from trim/discard. even slc can experience similar performance degradation effects over time w/o it's implementation.
I am aware of what TRIM is, and why it exists, and where it's utilized, and the benefits it could potentially give. However, most people do not see the larger picture. They focus on this one aspect without regard to the whole picture, something which I find usually to be an excuse to just wait.
Let's say TRIM is fully supported. Let's assume wear-leveling is still being used. Let's also assume that, for whatever reason, the system is writing way more data than it reads. Let's also assume SSD is being used for speed and not mass storage. This should cover about 90% of the SSD users out there.
TRIM will only clear pages which have NO data in them. In a typical operating environment, after a period of weeks or months, how many pages do we think would have NO data written on them? Even if it's 1 byte of data, the page has to be re-written like all the others. Without any standard supported defragmentation API for the SSD to create contiguous blocks of data at the page level, how can we be certain there will ever be any empty pages of data again? What good is TRIM if there are no or few pages to actually clear? TRIM cannot do the job by itself.
So, a lot more has to happen before TRIM is remotely useful, but even still -- if TRIM is the most important aspect of the purchase, perhaps we're looking at the wrong solution. With 4 SSD drives in a proper RAID 0 configuration, the amount of performance degradation will be humanly unnoticable -- that is, unless you happen to be writing gigabytes of data every hour.
Most systems read 75-90% of the time, and write 25% of the time or less. Writing is the only times when TRIM would have any effect.
I to not claim to know everything about TRIM or SSDs, but at least I have an operational system and it's much faster than before. Enough that I'd never go back to HDD without a fight.
TRIM is simply not an excuse to wait.
william, i am 'waiting" for trim and all the goodies that are involved in the standard, but have been enjoying several raided ssd arrays for quite some time, so i don't get this "waiting" you are referring to and yes, i notice when my performance goes down. anything that helps with this is a good thing. at the moment, i have to either do an hdderase or destructively re flash my drives to "restore" them, as being in an array, i am unable to take advantage of the brute force methods of trim that a certain manufacturer has come up with (single drives only). i work and play w/my system, and the drives get used. it almost seems as if you are declaring trim/discard to be some sort of boondoggle.
IMHO, TRIM itself is pretty much a boondoggle, or at the very least, not even close to the Holy Grail. Post some links to testing results which show improvement from TRIM in real-world situations -- and NOT from completely erasing a drive (as this is not what TRIM does). In real-world situations, the TRIM command would have very little to clean up without a proper internal defragmentation of the flash pages, and that would have to also need to include swapping data from one page to another to ensure proper wear-leveling.
As I mentioned, if you are writing gigabytes of data, you just might see stacked up speed improvements from a new or majorly "trimmed" drive. Don't forget, it's also possible that if you are seeing slow downs from everyday use, perhaps the SSD isn't the primary issue. Maybe it's RAM and the paging file, or the CPU, or some software? Maybe it's just flat out cheap SSD hardware? I have a strong feeling SSD speeds will quickly outpace any benefit TRIM could possibly hope to achieve, and prices are constantly diving.
Is your application a unique one? Please let me know about it so we can share and discuss the results. You said you gain improvement by wiping your drive completely, but it's not what TRIM will do. Therefore, how can you come to a final conclusion that TRIM will address your concern? You might want to take a closer look at what is doing so much writing to your SSDs -- and add on a hardware RAM drive to supplement it.
P.S. Do you have documentation to support the fact HDDerase or the other method you use is actually performing the erase function you're looking for? "SECURE ERASE" is not necessarily the same operation as TRIM. If secure erase is working, then perhaps just clearing slack space will also help in your configuration...?
about TRIM, here is what i think: If the manufacturer in this case Intel delivers a TRIM program, it will work for stand alone disks, like in a portable.
In a raid config, not possible. So it will be impossible for Windows to overcome the controller to get to the cells needing to be erased, to be prepared as "virgin" again. At least not possible yet, right?
Why do companies like Perfectdisk not offer this in there programs. There should be a way that when consolidating free space (space that is deleted but not erased) would be erased, in fact why can Windows not do this?
This would be the simpliest way. Instead of deleting a record, why can't it be erased. You skip the delete and gain speed.
Saying that the SSD controller does not allow this, well then the software on the controller should be changed so this can happen.
this is an intel forum, so i'm not going to espouse another manufacturer's product/FW. suffice to say if you google a certain popular company's sata/flash support forum,you will notice that many patrons of that site are indeed recouping drive performance using a proprietary app and drive FW capable of carrying out trim commands. i know what trim doesn't do, and i don't know why you are not being more supportive of the standard which will allow improved performance and broader acceptance of ssds. william, it's time to move forward, there is nothing to be gained by the dragging of feet. enjoy your drives
I don't feel there's any reason to avoid posting links or referencing information which is applicable to this topic, even if it's from another company or product. Perhaps it needs to be pointed out to those who need to know.
We never know - Intel might follow up with a response which reads something like, "Our drives won't require 'trim' support because they already perform internal optimizations, or they will in the next firmware release."
Well gentlemen, 5 months have passed since you began your interesting discussion/debate regarding TRIM and RAID. Intel firmware updates and Windows 7 have since been released. Any new performance data or changed opinions? I'm planning on implementing RAID-1 (for redundancy not performance) probably using two Intel X25-M SSDSA2MH080G2 SSD's for a new Win 7 Pro 64bit system I'm building. Motherboard will be Intel DP55KG.
I was definitely planning to implement TRIM if the onboard RAID controller will pass it through, but now I'm not sure. Most daily writes (temp, paging, backups, etc, will be going to RAM drive and/or a 1TB WD Caviar Green or Black RAID-1 disk array. Low noise, reliability and energy efficiency are more important than performance for me although read performance from the SSD RAID-1 array should be phenomenal--especially for home use.
1. None of the "Intel(R) Matrix Storage Manager" (MSM) driver versions do support the Trim command.
2. I don't think, that Intel will ever release an MSM driver, which passes the Trim command, because the MSM drivers will be outdated very soon.
3. Obviously Intel is planning to release in the near future a completely new AHCI and RAID driver generation named "Intel(R) Rapid Storage Technology" (RST). The first drivers v188.8.131.527 are already available at Station-Drivers. They are optimized for being used with SSD's and Win7.
4. What I don't know is, if the new RST drivers do already or will support Trim. That is why I started this thread:http://communities.intel.com/message/74253#74253
5. The biggest problem for RAID users is the fact, that they are not able to run the Optimizer of Intel's SSD Toolbox.
I don't think you understand how TRIM works. It isn't sacrificing lifespan, it is substantially increasing it, by reducing the frequency of read/erase/write cycles being needed. This increased lifespan IMO is a bigger reason to use it than the performance gains. (As you said the SSD is already fast enough without it).