Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

OWC vs Samsung Evo SSD with Yosemite 10.10.1?

got556

got556

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 7, 2013
491
160
Indiana
I have a Mid '09 MBP with 8GB RAM and the 500GB 7200 HDD. Looking to finally put an SSD in it, but with Yosemite, I see the kext signing has introduced new headaches with regards to TRIM.

I have been going back and forth on which SSD to get as I know I only have SATA II so going with a SATA II drive is no issue. With that said, I would prefer to go with a Sammy drive just for the reliability.

I seem to be a bit confused about OWC drives, however. Do they not need TRIM enabled, thus negating the turning off kext issue? If that is the case, I wouldn't mind going that route for one of their 240GB drives. How reliable have the OWC drives been, though?

I know Cindori has some patches to combat Yosemite kext signing and I would need to disable TRIM every time I update OS X, so not really an issue IMHO. However, Samsung also is rather, non existent, shall we say when it comes to being user friendly in updating it's SSD firmware on OS X. If I have Parallels 10 installed with Win7, could I just update the firmware on Windows or is it OS X specific firmware that needs to be updated via OS X?

Just a lot of questions needing answers before I plop down the $100+ for a new drive. Also still trying to decide what I want to do with my old HDD once I remove it. Thought about moving it to the optibay, but also may just use it for a back up drive, externally.

Thanks for any and all answers/help.
 
K

kevink2

macrumors 68000
Nov 2, 2008
1,842
294
I've had both OWC and Crucial without issues. The OWC the longest.

I think the claim that OWCs don't need trim is due to their builtin compression, which reduces for normal files the actual number of sectors in use, allowing more to be available.

From what I've read, trim doesn't have any downside. But, depending on how full your drive and usage patterns, it may not really matter whether you have trim enabled or not.

I'm giving going without trim a try with yosemite. Haven't seen slowdown yet.
 
TonyK

TonyK

macrumors 65816
May 24, 2009
1,032
148
Pardon me if this is not a good location for this but it concerns a Crucial SSD (MX100/256GB) and 10.10.1.

This last weekend I installed 10.10.1 on my wife's system, upgrading an existing 10.8 install. It was successful and rebooted just fine.

When leaving the system that night it had about 163GB free. The next morning it was below 37GB free.

Explored the folders and Get Info from Finder and could not find where the other 130GB went.

Cloned the drive to a standard HD and it cloned the 90+GB without issue and I erased the SSD.

But I'm hesitant to clone the drive back because of the issue with lost space on this drive. Trim Enable had been disabled.

Full disclosure. Did an upgrade, same day, on a different system with a large SSD unit. That also has TRIM ENABLER disabled. No problems so far and no space has vanished.

Any ideas why the upgrade to 10.10.1 lost so much space on the smaller SSD.

Both units ran 10.8.5 on their respective SSDs and never had a problem.

Thanks,


kevink2 said:
I've had both OWC and Crucial without issues. The OWC the longest.

I think the claim that OWCs don't need trim is due to their builtin compression, which reduces for normal files the actual number of sectors in use, allowing more to be available.

From what I've read, trim doesn't have any downside. But, depending on how full your drive and usage patterns, it may not really matter whether you have trim enabled or not.

I'm giving going without trim a try with yosemite. Haven't seen slowdown yet.
Click to expand...
 
S

snaky69

macrumors 603
Mar 14, 2008
5,908
488
TonyK said:
Pardon me if this is not a good location for this but it concerns a Crucial SSD (MX100/256GB) and 10.10.1.

This last weekend I installed 10.10.1 on my wife's system, upgrading an existing 10.8 install. It was successful and rebooted just fine.

When leaving the system that night it had about 163GB free. The next morning it was below 37GB free.

Explored the folders and Get Info from Finder and could not find where the other 130GB went.

Cloned the drive to a standard HD and it cloned the 90+GB without issue and I erased the SSD.

But I'm hesitant to clone the drive back because of the issue with lost space on this drive. Trim Enable had been disabled.

Full disclosure. Did an upgrade, same day, on a different system with a large SSD unit. That also has TRIM ENABLER disabled. No problems so far and no space has vanished.

Any ideas why the upgrade to 10.10.1 lost so much space on the smaller SSD.

Both units ran 10.8.5 on their respective SSDs and never had a problem.

Thanks,
Click to expand...
It could very well be a few local snapshots from Time Machine. Plug in your time machine external (if you have one) and let it does its thing. Then have spotlight reindex the drive.
 
C

chipchen

macrumors 6502a
Oct 30, 2002
604
245
Actually, you can just turn off kext signing and keep TRIM on. I can't tell you how off the top of my head, but just google it. It's better that way.

I've got several EVOs, all great... even though Samsung is evil.
 
TonyK

TonyK

macrumors 65816
May 24, 2009
1,032
148
For me that would not be an issue. My wife though, with visual issues, I dare not ask her to do the terminal commands.

My question was more of why did a 256GB drive with < 160GB free after the OS upgrade suddenly find itself, less than 12 hours later with < 40GB free. None of the folders I could find had changed size. Did not expose or interrogate hidden folders but I should have. My concern at that moment was to get her running again without issue.

Thanks,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom