Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Enable TRIM BEFORE clean install of OS X El Capitan
- Thread starter iceman4321
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your spreading misinformation around this forum. My answer to your post in another thread:
Lou
That message is nothing but a disclaimer. Apple can't guarantee that TRIM won't cause issues with some drives and they make this clear through that message. This is Apple's way of saying that they don't take any responsibility. That has nothing to do with the fact that the feature seems to work as it should, so you ought to provide some evidence to the contrary.
No it is not Apple's way of making a disclaimer. I can not think for Apple, but I guess they use it for their +own+ SSDs because it keeps a bit more of free space. Your experience is irrelevant, believe what you believe. My experience (10 yrs PC + SSD, and 4 years and 15-20 SSD's different brands in macs) does not matter either.
You are missing the point. Apple has added this function for non-Apple SSDs. It wasn't available before, whereas Apple SSDs had TRIM already enabled. Because they don't control the hardware, they cannot guarantee that no issues occur, hence the disclaimer. Whether that actually happens is a point for which you have provided no evidence and one on which you are scaremongering.
I do not miss the point. You do.
The Trim item is there because a young kid promoted it for mac and wanted to earn money. It was there "always" in Windows. Since the SSD producers did produce for the PC market, there was no issue. Lately the mac market is a little bit bigger than a fraction of a percent for SSDs, the question was to install Trim or not. In those days the controllers (for PC programmed) were rather crude especially for Garbage Control. So a number of people tried the Trim command even though most SSDs did not even have compatibility for Trim. The trim command is just a command in OSX, it does not notice whether it is used or not and there is no problem when you do not have a SSD at all or when you have a SSD that is not capable of "using" the message. The SSDs are still the "same" although the technique (nand and all that) is much more advanced, they are still laid out for use in the PC market (OWC exception, see later). But Apple "striving forward" began to use SSD and flash for the built-in disk. And users (like me) started to replace or add SSDs inside. The trim command was used for these "Apple" SSDs, but Apple realised that HSF+ was very different from (and maybe not as good as) NTFS, so they made their own controller (or had it made) in the ssd. It saves lifetime or the ssd when the user uses the free space up almost, which was unavoidable at the time because of the price of the ssd. Then the OSX was hacked to install the trim command by several people, trim was sold as a panache for performance and longer lifetime of the ssd, which it is not, the quality of the GarbageCollection in the controller is. Now controllers are stepped ahead ages from the older controllers and the price of ssds are MUCH lower, and reserving some extra space for the Garbage Collection is not a problem anymore, so the trim command is absolutely not doing any good. Added that to mac non-apple ssds still focussed on PCs and not being laid out for the OSX disk format the testing is if any, almost non-existant. And some failures are already detected, although they are very difficult to find or measure. It happens mostly when the controllers make other mistakes.
OWC is the only supplier that makes this point clear: do not use trim.
But they too are confronted by the "food supplement" marketing that screams "use trim". Like an unproven religie. Apple now quickly moves forward to make the OSX more secure: in Yosemite it was not possible to hack the Extension that regards the trim, now there is even another extra layer in ElCapitan.
Even if trim would be useful, and secure and faultless, it is really stupid to break that security with a hack. Nothing is worth that. Ask yourself where do the suppliers of the trim hack live off, there must be a reason for their promotion other than just glory.
In older days I used the trim command, for "old" SSDs, and then I began study the Controllers and the HFS+/NTFS and what have you that has influence; since the SSD controllers are very advanced now, the only perfect way to have the full from the SSD is (as I do it): formatting it not completely but leave a small part unformatted so that the Garbage Collection can do its job unhampered by the computer as it is programmed to do.
The Trim item is there because a young kid promoted it for mac and wanted to earn money. It was there "always" in Windows. Since the SSD producers did produce for the PC market, there was no issue. Lately the mac market is a little bit bigger than a fraction of a percent for SSDs, the question was to install Trim or not. In those days the controllers (for PC programmed) were rather crude especially for Garbage Control. So a number of people tried the Trim command even though most SSDs did not even have compatibility for Trim. The trim command is just a command in OSX, it does not notice whether it is used or not and there is no problem when you do not have a SSD at all or when you have a SSD that is not capable of "using" the message. The SSDs are still the "same" although the technique (nand and all that) is much more advanced, they are still laid out for use in the PC market (OWC exception, see later). But Apple "striving forward" began to use SSD and flash for the built-in disk. And users (like me) started to replace or add SSDs inside. The trim command was used for these "Apple" SSDs, but Apple realised that HSF+ was very different from (and maybe not as good as) NTFS, so they made their own controller (or had it made) in the ssd. It saves lifetime or the ssd when the user uses the free space up almost, which was unavoidable at the time because of the price of the ssd. Then the OSX was hacked to install the trim command by several people, trim was sold as a panache for performance and longer lifetime of the ssd, which it is not, the quality of the GarbageCollection in the controller is. Now controllers are stepped ahead ages from the older controllers and the price of ssds are MUCH lower, and reserving some extra space for the Garbage Collection is not a problem anymore, so the trim command is absolutely not doing any good. Added that to mac non-apple ssds still focussed on PCs and not being laid out for the OSX disk format the testing is if any, almost non-existant. And some failures are already detected, although they are very difficult to find or measure. It happens mostly when the controllers make other mistakes.
OWC is the only supplier that makes this point clear: do not use trim.
But they too are confronted by the "food supplement" marketing that screams "use trim". Like an unproven religie. Apple now quickly moves forward to make the OSX more secure: in Yosemite it was not possible to hack the Extension that regards the trim, now there is even another extra layer in ElCapitan.
Even if trim would be useful, and secure and faultless, it is really stupid to break that security with a hack. Nothing is worth that. Ask yourself where do the suppliers of the trim hack live off, there must be a reason for their promotion other than just glory.
In older days I used the trim command, for "old" SSDs, and then I began study the Controllers and the HFS+/NTFS and what have you that has influence; since the SSD controllers are very advanced now, the only perfect way to have the full from the SSD is (as I do it): formatting it not completely but leave a small part unformatted so that the Garbage Collection can do its job unhampered by the computer as it is programmed to do.
There is no need to "break security" to enable TRIM with the latest Yosemite and El Capitan versions. You just run the command "sudo trimforce enable" in Terminal and you are done. There is zero reduction in security by doing this. You may be thinking of earlier betas that required disabling OS X System Integrity Protection (SIP) to enable trimforce.
You might want give this a read. OWC has no problem with TRIM being enabled.
A couple relevant quotes from the OWC article.
This thread is an interesting read, however is there a problem with quoting *and* typing in the same post?...............
The article effectively says that there is no need for Trim (my point exactly), and indeed that (since 10.10.4 i think) the trimforce command has no faults in their testing (my point: difficult to find, it may be there or not): ( so why would you do it?) and their firmware has to be updated first ( ? were there issues before ? ).
Funny, this was one of the OWC blogs that I was mentioning also (in the video interview this guy was less positive in my hearing).
Indeed you are right that with the actual ElCapitan you do not have to give up a security "ring" anymore. That does not mean that they are not without worry, not every brand is as good as another one. And it has nothing really to do with the argument. At least OWC researched it at all, and do not say no (that would possibly less sales) but they require FW 3.65.
BTW: my note about samsung 850 was not about trim: you said you have the samsung 850 (I have 2 also), and there is an important FW update that seemed to be data loss when the data was not moved for a long time; not to do with trim.
I still stand here to strongly avoid trim, it does not bring anything, and even if you have no issues, there is still a risk. The Linux kernel (OSX) has been patched ( ? ) I am not sure about this.
Funny, this was one of the OWC blogs that I was mentioning also (in the video interview this guy was less positive in my hearing).
Indeed you are right that with the actual ElCapitan you do not have to give up a security "ring" anymore. That does not mean that they are not without worry, not every brand is as good as another one. And it has nothing really to do with the argument. At least OWC researched it at all, and do not say no (that would possibly less sales) but they require FW 3.65.
BTW: my note about samsung 850 was not about trim: you said you have the samsung 850 (I have 2 also), and there is an important FW update that seemed to be data loss when the data was not moved for a long time; not to do with trim.
I still stand here to strongly avoid trim, it does not bring anything, and even if you have no issues, there is still a risk. The Linux kernel (OSX) has been patched ( ? ) I am not sure about this.
The 840 Evo has a bug in the firmware that causes old data to be slow. The bug does not exist in the 850 and has nothing to do with Trim, so why even mention it in this thread?
There is so much nonsense in this thread it's unreal.
1. Enabling TRIM won't damage your SSD in any way. The worst forcing TRIM to be enabled on OS X can really do is make your system not start if something goes wrong. At which point it's easily recoverable. All TRIM in OS X does is sends commands to the SSD's controller, it's down to the controller to erase memory.
2. I've never seen any instances or (verified) reports of TRIM deleting the "wrong" data. There was one instance of this reported by a news outlet who was hungry for views and didn't investigate properly. It turned out it was a Linux Kernel error, not a problem with the SSD.
3. TRIM was highly necessary on older drives, whose (write) performance degraded significantly with use. Nowadays, more modern SSDs have much improved on-chip garbage collectors, which negate most of the performance degradation of TRIM.
4. That said, TRIM will still help write performance on newer SSDs, the performance increase just won't be as profound.
5. The warning from Apple is to cover their ass. If there is a dodgy SSD out there from an unknown manufacturer who hasn't implemented the TRIM commands properly, then yes, you could lose your data. On any mainstream tried-and-tested SSD, that's not going to happen.
6. If anything does go wrong, you all have backups? Right?
1. Enabling TRIM won't damage your SSD in any way. The worst forcing TRIM to be enabled on OS X can really do is make your system not start if something goes wrong. At which point it's easily recoverable. All TRIM in OS X does is sends commands to the SSD's controller, it's down to the controller to erase memory.
2. I've never seen any instances or (verified) reports of TRIM deleting the "wrong" data. There was one instance of this reported by a news outlet who was hungry for views and didn't investigate properly. It turned out it was a Linux Kernel error, not a problem with the SSD.
3. TRIM was highly necessary on older drives, whose (write) performance degraded significantly with use. Nowadays, more modern SSDs have much improved on-chip garbage collectors, which negate most of the performance degradation of TRIM.
4. That said, TRIM will still help write performance on newer SSDs, the performance increase just won't be as profound.
5. The warning from Apple is to cover their ass. If there is a dodgy SSD out there from an unknown manufacturer who hasn't implemented the TRIM commands properly, then yes, you could lose your data. On any mainstream tried-and-tested SSD, that's not going to happen.
6. If anything does go wrong, you all have backups? Right?
I forgot to answer: like Windows is a GUI over Dos is OSX a GUI over Unix (linux or whatever you call this clone).
Garbage Collection works its own work on free moments in time (and very good so in the modern SSDs). Trim does not bring anything more than telling the SSD what can be deleted. May possibly take some moments from the GC and/or create timing issues.
It is impossible to say whether trim does or does not cause issues on a SSD. AS I said before it does not crash a SSD, but it is impossible to say whether it slows down GC or speeds it up thus it's claim that it does brings something is theoretical.
The write speed is and stays good when GC has enough free space to do its job, until the max number of block cleareance is reached.
The Linux kernel list of SSDs is important, why is it there.
Last edited:
It's irrelevant. OS X's kernel is not Linux. Unix is not Linux. The problem with TRIM in Samsung SSDs was specific to the Linux kernel. You're spreading misinformation that isn't helpful to anyone.
Windows has not been "a GUI over DOS" in decades.
It is not Linux, OSX is a GUI. I never said it is, you said it is not. I pointed to the kernel which is. Linux = Unix clone. I pointed to the kernel and it is relevant.
I guess the XNU kernel is a GUI too to you. Launchd too.
"Unix clone" does not mean what you think, it means that it implements the posix standard and a number of common utilities, the whole kernel and the whole remaining parts of the os are different. A thing written in the linux kernel is completely useless for OS X.
"Unix clone" does not mean what you think, it means that it implements the posix standard and a number of common utilities, the whole kernel and the whole remaining parts of the os are different. A thing written in the linux kernel is completely useless for OS X.
No. OS X is its own version of Unix, based on Apple's Darwin which is derived from BSD. There are many places where OS X and Linux share similarities, but the kernels of each are very dissimilar.