| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I've been waiting for a proper statistical analysis of this question for |
| 4 |
> years. I'm still waiting :-) Besides, modern storage presents an extra |
| 5 |
> wrinkle. Defrag as most of the world knows it originated in DOS, where disk |
| 6 |
> sectors were guaranteed to be laid out on disk in the order of their sector |
| 7 |
> number. These days we have no such guarantee, and you cannot really be sure |
| 8 |
> if blocks are laid out contiguously on-disk just by looking at the blocks |
| 9 |
> numbers. I don't know of any filesystem tool that knows how to interrogate a |
| 10 |
> drive's firmware and get it right for every storage type out there. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I never thought about the blocks and how they are laid out on the |
| 16 |
drive. If you think about it, they can have those things anywhere. |
| 17 |
Even if they are laid out by a defrag tool in proper sequence, they may |
| 18 |
not be laid out that way on the platter(s). Sort of makes one wonder if |
| 19 |
some file systems can really even be defragged below a certain amount. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
< Dale scratches his chin and thinks > |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Dale |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
:-) :-) |
Archives