Windows 7's Trim Function

[jsquareg]

I have just installed an Intel 80gb SSD. AHCI is set and fsutil reports the Trim function as enabled.

Intel offers an Toolbox that contains an Optimizer function that will use the Trim function on the SDD. Does Win7's Trim function automatically perform the the trim on the SDD thus eliminating the desirability or need for running the Toolbox/Optimizer?

Clearly, I am in over my head in this and would appreciate someone helping me out here.

Thank you.

 

[Corazon]

No need for the toolbox. If you've already confirmed with fsutil that TRIM is enabled, you're all set. TRIM is fully integrated with Windows' NTFS filesystem, shadow copies, search indexing and everything else.

 

[jsquareg]

No need for the toolbox. If you've already confirmed with fsutil that TRIM is enabled, you're all set. TRIM is fully integrated with Windows' NTFS filesystem, shadow copies, search indexing and everything else.

Thank you. The spirit of Alex Nichols lives.

 

[Tae Song]

NTFS and SSD isn't a very good combination. NTFS is a journalling file system and makes frequent entries (writes) to the SSD, even when there's no other activity going on. Solid-state flash drives have a limit rewritable life cycle, journalling isn't a good thing on SSDs.

FAT is better choice if the option is available. It's something Microsoft might want to look into.

 

[tw33k]

NTFS and SSD isn't a very good combination. NTFS is a journalling file system and makes frequent entries (writes) to the SSD, even when there's no other activity going on. Solid-state flash drives have a limit rewritable life cycle, journalling isn't a good thing on SSDs.

FAT is better choice if the option is available. It's something Microsoft might want to look into.

That life-cycle is a lot longer then you're making out.The vast majority of people will upgrade their SSD long before it wears out

 

[essenbe]

NTFS and SSD isn't a very good combination. NTFS is a journalling file system and makes frequent entries (writes) to the SSD, even when there's no other activity going on. Solid-state flash drives have a limit rewritable life cycle, journalling isn't a good thing on SSDs.

FAT is better choice if the option is available. It's something Microsoft might want to look into.

Perhaps you should take the time an read the tests at extremesystems, you may find out that SSDs are more durable that you say. These are the writes to the drives. The first one to die had written 525TB on a 64GB SSD>

 

[whs]

NTFS and SSD isn't a very good combination. NTFS is a journalling file system and makes frequent entries (writes) to the SSD, even when there's no other activity going on. Solid-state flash drives have a limit rewritable life cycle, journalling isn't a good thing on SSDs.

FAT is better choice if the option is available. It's something Microsoft might want to look into.

I don't know from where you got that idea. My oldest 3 year old SSD has a remaining lifetime until 2021 - that is enough for me. All this hype about the fragility of SSDs is ridiculous.

 

[Tae Song]

NTFS and SSD isn't a very good combination. NTFS is a journalling file system and makes frequent entries (writes) to the SSD, even when there's no other activity going on. Solid-state flash drives have a limit rewritable life cycle, journalling isn't a good thing on SSDs.

FAT is better choice if the option is available. It's something Microsoft might want to look into.

That life-cycle is a lot longer then you're making out.The vast majority of people will upgrade their SSD long before it wears out

That's engineering margin of safety... after that chances of failure increases and sometimes failure do occur even within the margin of safety.

 

[essenbe]

NTFS and SSD isn't a very good combination. NTFS is a journalling file system and makes frequent entries (writes) to the SSD, even when there's no other activity going on. Solid-state flash drives have a limit rewritable life cycle, journalling isn't a good thing on SSDs.

FAT is better choice if the option is available. It's something Microsoft might want to look into.

That life-cycle is a lot longer then you're making out.The vast majority of people will upgrade their SSD long before it wears out

That's engineering margin of safety... after that chances of failure increases and sometimes failure do occur even within the margin of safety.

That's over 500TB written to a 64GB drive. None of us will ever wear one of those out. Engineering margin of safety? Intel Says you can write 5GB per day for 5 years. That equates to about 9TB. They have lasted over 500TB. That is much more than any engineering margin of safety. As far as a limited rewritable life cycle, everything in your computer has a limit of endurance. And try to get trim with FAT file system.

 

[Corazon]

For that matter, try to run Windows 7 on a FAT32 filesystem.

It's simply not possible.

 

[Britton30]

NTFS and SSD isn't a very good combination. NTFS is a journalling file system and makes frequent entries (writes) to the SSD, even when there's no other activity going on. Solid-state flash drives have a limit rewritable life cycle, journalling isn't a good thing on SSDs.

FAT is better choice if the option is available. It's something Microsoft might want to look into.

Well Crap! I guess I need to return my new SSD because it won't work on XP, Vista, or Win 7. All you 1000's of people with SSDs better be careful.

 

[Corazon]

Gah, you're right! I knew I should've stuck with Windows 98 SE.

 

[Garlic]

NTFS and SSD isn't a very good combination. NTFS is a journalling file system and makes frequent entries (writes) to the SSD, even when there's no other activity going on. Solid-state flash drives have a limit rewritable life cycle, journalling isn't a good thing on SSDs.

FAT is better choice if the option is available. It's something Microsoft might want to look into.

I think what you said about NTFS is not entirely true. NTFS uses metadata-only journalling, so things are written to journal only when metadata is updated.

 

[Britton30]

Gah, you're right! I knew I should've stuck with Windows 98 SE.

Or 95...maybe.