Tim wrote:
Mike McCarty:
From reading Mike's postings over the last several days, it seems he's one of those that forever argues "I didn't say that", threads are only between original poster and first respondent and about the original words spoken, and is adamant that everyone must agree with him.
Well, I'm sorry I impress you that way. I try to choose my words carefully when posting, and usually mean very much literally what I say, except when using irony (humorous or otherwise). I hope what I put in here doesn't sound anything but cordial. I've read it several times, trying to remove anything which might sound condemnatory.
What I argued were these points:
(1) ext3 is subject to fragmentation (2) fragmentation has effects on disc performance for at least these reasons: (a) most if not all modern discs actually do read-ahead and if sequential reads are taking place, then these can help since we have parallel processing in our favor (b) any caching algorithm has bad cases, and so one cannot rely on caching to make up for all effects of fragmentation, since the caching may make the performance *worse* (3) exactly what the effects of fragmentation are depend heavily on how the file is used, and a fragmented disc may actually have better response than a contiguous one (especially with multitasking this is relevant, since multiple files may be involved) (4) not all effects of fragmentation are performance related, and if one is trying to reallocate partitions it may make sense to have a defragmenter
I did not argue any of these points:
(1) ext3 fragmentation has effects which are noticeable under most ordinary circumstances to ordinary users of Linux (2) the caching algorithm used in Linux is inadequate for many or any of the users of Linux (3) I need to have an ext3 defragmentation program (4) I am being adversely affected by fragmentation (5) I am worried about or spend time concerned over fragmentation on my machine (6) anyone else should be worried about, or spend time fretting over any effects of fragmentation when using ext3 with Linux (7) anything other than what is listed above (unless I inadvertently overlooked something) in my list of points I argued (1)-(4).
I have seen people, including you, respond to points I did not argue. For example, your statement and my reply
I don't worry about fragmentation any more than I worry about other technicalities of how the data is put onto the drive.
Arguing against claims I haven't made.
I never claimed I was "worried" or "troubled" by fragmentation. What I claimed is that it exists, and it has effects.
Then Ed chimed in with
*sigh*
Not true, Mike. Both the original poster and you discussed performance:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2005-December/msg03298.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2005-December/msg03340.html
I pointed out that "discuss" and "worry about" are not synonymous.
This is an exact quote from my reply to Ed:
Specifically not true. "Discussion" and "worry" are two different things. I am myself not worried about whatever the effects on performance might be, since I am not experiencing any problems with disc performance. I have not made any claims that whatever performance hits there are are significant to me. Whether they are significant to others depends on a variety of factors. I also don't argue that *you* experience problems with disc performance.
Do you disagree that one may discuss something which one does not consider significant or worrisome? What was significant to me was what I considered to be counter-factual claims, not disc performance, and those are what I was responding to. Counterfactual claims *are* worrisome to me. In pursuing them, I wound up discussing disc performance. But for me disc performance is not the issue.
The reason I got into this thread in the first place was that I saw what seemed to me to be an absolute post that ext3 is inherently immune to fragmentation, and it just does not/cannot occur. That is demonstrably false. Another post seemed to flatly state that because Linux uses caching, any fragmentation is irrelevant except for the first read of the disc. This is also demonstrably, and even provably, false.
I'm not trying to weasel out, as you can see, since I am here, in what I hope are very plain words, stating what I have tried to claim, and what I have not tried to claim, and what my motives were.
Briefly, my motive is to correct flat statements which seem to me to be factually incorrect, some of them seeming to contradict theorems of computer science.
I don't give a rip about the fragmentation on my machine, since it doesn't seem to cause me any problems whatsoever.
I do care when people make statements to the effect that ext3 is not subject to fragmentation, or that caching can nullify the effects of fragmentation.
I also care when people argue in reply to me, against points I haven't made and wouldn't make, responding to words which I did not and would not use. Especially when I am pretty careful not to say things I don't intend.
Now, to take your claims about me in turn...
From reading Mike's postings over the last several days, it seems he's one of those that forever argues "I didn't say that", threads are only
I think that I have demonstrated that you, at least, have argued against points I haven't intended to make. When someone says "I didn't argue that", people with open minds tend to ask "Oh? Then I must have misunderstood. What point *did* you intend to make?" Argumentative and closed minded people tend to draw conclusions and impute motives.
between original poster and first respondent and about the original words spoken,
Since I specifically addressed issues that the OP and the OR did not discuss, I guess that this doesn't seem quite on the mark, either. I will confess to trying to guide some of the thread back on track of helping the poor OP actually get a response which might be useful to him.
and is adamant that everyone must agree with him.
I'll give you right here the chance to argue against any or all of the points (1)-(4) I argue for above which you believe to be incorrect. I'd be glad to learn which of my beliefs on these points are inaccurate.
P.S. personal comments are better reserved to personal e-mail, with a return address which does not give the appearance of being bogus, don't you think?
Mike