This "resilience" is overrated; Apple's Samsung/Toshiba SSDs don't get much slower over time, but they start out slow to begin with. They're effectively pre-degraded.
The complaint is that Apple's lack of TRIM support impacts performance on their SSDs; the Anandtech article says that this isn't the case. The fact that their SSDs are slower than the competition is a separate argument.
"Because of the way that file systems typically handle delete operations, storage media (SSDs, but also traditional hard drives) generally do not know which sectors/pages are truly in use and which can be considered free space. Delete operations are typically limited to flagging data blocks as "not in use" in the file system.[5][6] Contrary to, for example, an overwrite operation, a delete will therefore not involve a physical write to the sectors that contain the data. Since a common SSD has no access to the file system structures, including the list of unused clusters, the storage medium remains unaware that the blocks have become available."
Uh, why would I be saying "yay, TRIM!" if I thought OS X already had TRIM?
Here, "blocks" is ambiguous. On a rotating HD, OS X does use the same physical blocks. On an SSD, OS X tries mightily to addresses the same "blocks" but the SSD might move this mapping to different physical blocks.
By doing this, OS X minimizes, as much as possible, the dirtying of "blocks" it doesn't have to, which means it puts the least burden possible on the SSD as it tries to do things like wear leveling.
3rd try. Please respond to what I'm actually saying.
Once the disk is full, "dirty" blocks have to be re-used. Clearing those for writing adds time and bandwidth overhead that slows down write performance.
So, the OSX "solution" is a temporary fix. However I'm pretty sure SSD write leveling behavior is standard across all other operating systems.
Blocks - memory address space sections? What's ambiguous about this term?
Actually, you said it earlier in the thread: the motherboard is addressing blocks on its model of the SSD. These can map to different physical blocks on the SSD. You don't specify which you are talking about at any given time.
Here's more information about what TRIM does:
You keep on mistaking your misunderstanding of what I'm saying for mine of TRIM. I understand what TRIM does.
Once the disk is full, "dirty" blocks have to be re-used.
So, all this time, you were imagining a full disk? Savvy SSD users leave 20% of so space so that wear leveling works better.
So, the OSX "solution" is a temporary fix.
For me, it lasted exactly as long as it had to.
However I'm pretty sure SSD write leveling behavior is standard across all other operating systems.
SSD write leveling isn't implemented by the OS. (Take some of your own medicine.) If, however, the OS prefers to "dirty" blocks and doesn't have TRIM, you more quickly get to the point where there are very few blocks the SSD can use for wear leveling.
I don't know why we keep returning to wear-leveling as a priority.
If SSD hardware life-cycle is so short that apex capacity isn't reached, garbage collection isn't required to maintain performance, and cell degradation is irrelevant.
I expect to use a storage medium at advertised capacity, at the advertised speed, for the life of the device. With TRIM support this is possible, no compromise necessary.
