Ed Hill wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 11:46 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 18:27 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
What I *did* claim is that ext3 is subject to fragmentation.
The "so what" answer is probably the best answer that you're going to
If you actually bothered to read what went before, you'd see that is response is malapropos.
[snip]
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.
*sigh*
Not true, Mike. Both the original poster and you discussed performance:
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.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2005-December/msg03298.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2005-December/msg03340.html
and you asserted:
"Umm, I believe the argument is not that it defrags itself, just that the type of fragmentation it enjoys does not affect performance. Some sort of fertilizer[*], if you ask me."
So, please come up with some actual measurements that will back up your "fertilizer" story.
If you actually read what I wrote, you will see that my statement is that claims that there is no effect on performance is fertilizer. I did not claim that the effects, whatever they are, bother me, or anyone else. I simply state that they *exist*.
It is entirely possible that, on my machine, the fragmentation *enhances* performance. Unlikely, but possible.
Mike