this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
1124 points (98.7% liked)
Programmer Humor
19623 readers
69 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Random reads are still slower than sequential in SSD. try torrenting for a year on SSD, then benchmark then defragment then benchmark. it will be very measureable difference. you may need some linux filesystem like XFS as im not sure if there is a way to defrag SSDs in windows.
That's because the drive was written to its limits; the defrag runs a TRIM command that safely releases and resets empty sectors. Random reads and sequential reads /on clean drives that are regularly TRIMmed/ are within random variance of each other.
Source: ran large scale data collection for a data centre when SSDs were relatively new to the company so focused a lot on it, plus lots of data from various sectors since.
I'm pretty sure running XFS defrag will defrag without trimming no matter the type of block device.
Edit: yea you might actually be right. I Played with my fstab too much years ago, and never thought of that untill now
I understood that XFS automatically mounted SSD's with XFS_XFLAG_NODEFRAG set? Is this not the case?
yea you might actually be right. I Played with my fstab too much years ago, and never thought of that until now
But does that flag affect manually running xfs_fsr?
According to the man(8) page, it will avoid touching any blocks that have the
chattr -fflag set, which is XSR_XFLAGS_NODEFRAG... So I think if the docs are still accurate to the code, yes.A lot of ifs in that assumption.