Contribute
Register

Big delay during boot

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks.:thumbup:

Trying to be logical about it, if older Mac hardware runs Monterey without significant boot delays, then the new problems we are seeing seem to be caused by specific hackintosh SSDs, namely Samsung ones with the new Phoenix controller. When Apple updated their code for Monterey, if they aren't using Phoenix (though they often used Samsung Surface-Mount SSDs), then they wouldn't think of coding for it.

I'm still in the dark here ... It would be useful to hear from non-Samsung NVME SSD users if they have similar problems. (I may have missed that, if so apologies.. .)

There are a number of threads here -- I don't have the links at my fingertips, but I know that CaseySJ's massive Golden Build thread has a recent mini-guide that was compiling a list of problem NVMe's. Also, on the Dortania site, they have the list of SSDs and are asking volunteers to post benchmarks of their NVMe's using disabled, cutoff limit and maximum limit.

After a week or so of reading the posts, I mostly saw that WD SN750 was pretty much problem free, so I just went with that.
 
There are a number of threads here -- I don't have the links at my fingertips, but I know that CaseySJ's massive Golden Build thread has a recent mini-guide that was compiling a list of problem NVMe's. Also, on the Dortania site, they have the list of SSDs and are asking volunteers to post benchmarks of their NVMe's using disabled, cutoff limit and maximum limit.

After a week or so of reading the posts, I mostly saw that WD SN750 was pretty much problem free, so I just went with that.

Sensible choice. :thumbup:

I think sometimes we just make things difficult for ourselves by insisting on using non-supported or untested hardware.

But I sympathise when Big Sur was seemingly running flawlessly and Monterey goes and wrecks that.
 
Sensible choice. :thumbup:

I think sometimes we just make things difficult for ourselves by insisting on using non-supported or untested hardware.

But I sympathise when Big Sur was seemingly running flawlessly and Monterey goes and wrecks that.

Yeah, I sense there are probably a lot of things under the hood for Monterey, or features that are only specific to the M1 Macs. Otherwise, I don't see many differences between Monterey and Big Sur. Aside from the cosmetic differences, I didn't see many differences between Big Sur and Catalina. But the nuts and bolts things, like the BT stack, the NVMe problems, the sealed volumes, etc., were all headaches for us Hackintoshers.

I have a feeling that Apple is making these moves to progressively seal off the Emerald City. Eventually, when they transition completely to AppleSi, there will be no easy way to get that to run on a non-Apple system.
 
I have a feeling that Apple is making these moves to progressively seal off the Emerald City. Eventually, when they transition completely to AppleSi, there will be no easy way to get that to run on a non-Apple system.
O' ye of little faith! Just give it some time :beachball:
 
I have a feeling that Apple is making these moves to progressively seal off the Emerald City. Eventually, when they transition completely to AppleSi, there will be no easy way to get that to run on a non-Apple system.
I know, it's a pain in the neck. As for my points I'm interested in, that transition to ARM architecture buried almost all of the software development except iOS/MacOS ofcourse. Perhaps frontend javascript should goes fine as well. And I can't even buy Apple branded hardware because there are a lot of issue with IDEs, debugging and running software on the technology stack required for my work..
I really hoped that they would insert the 11th generation Intel into one of their products for the possibility of a 'native' Hackintosh with these processors.
Why am I using Hackintosh? Well, that is only the OS looks very good on 4K monitors. And I have to make iOS application builds/testing the resources consumptions from time to time..
 
@UtterDisbelief --

I'm not sure, but in theory it should boot faster. With my Big Sur on my Samsung, I was enabling and disabling it from OpenCore (meaning set the TRIM timeout to maximum, a cutoff limit or disable). It was definitely slower if I didn't disable it.
can you please explain how to do it in OpenCore?
 
can you please explain how to do it in OpenCore?

I think it's changed around a bit with Monterey and Opencore


Right now, it is Kernel > Quirks > SetApfsTrimTimeout

Set this to -1 to enable

Set this to 0 to disable

There used to be an option to set a time limit on how long it could run. If you set it to a maximum number (I forget) it could take minutes. I think at -1 (enable) it might have an upper time limit, after which it stops the TRIM process and moves on. Which doesn't sound good to me....
 
I think it's changed around a bit with Monterey and Opencore


Right now, it is Kernel > Quirks > SetApfsTrimTimeout

Set this to -1 to enable

Set this to 0 to disable

There used to be an option to set a time limit on how long it could run. If you set it to a maximum number (I forget) it could take minutes. I think at -1 (enable) it might have an upper time limit, after which it stops the TRIM process and moves on. Which doesn't sound good to me....
great. setting to "0" solve long boot delay for my samsung 970 EVO.
thank you a lot!
 
great. setting to "0" solve long boot delay for my samsung 970 EVO.
thank you a lot!

@gapalil001 - I would think that this is a temporary solution. There are some nice explanations about the TRIM process and why it is necessary. It's just that the way Apple implemented the TRIM process was not compatible with the Samsung NVMe controller. If I remember correctly, in theory, disabling TRIM will lead to a shorter life span for the drive.
 
@gapalil001 - I would think that this is a temporary solution. There are some nice explanations about the TRIM process and why it is necessary. It's just that the way Apple implemented the TRIM process was not compatible with the Samsung NVMe controller. If I remember correctly, in theory, disabling TRIM will lead to a shorter life span for the drive.
as i understand, TRIM is enabled now, but without timeout. i saw some explanations on youtube about it and as i understand, TRIM is created to use SSD clusters more rationality. in my system report TRIM shown as enabled

[edited]

just found right now in 0.8.0 changelog -

  • Better explanations for SetApfsTrimTimeout. On macOS 12+, it is no longer possible to specify trim timeout for APFS filesystems. However, it can be disabled by setting SetApfsTrimTimeout=0. When APFS trim timeout is set to 0, trim is disabled even when System Information says that it's enabled.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top