|
|||||||||||
|
Re: Why ext3 doesn't need defragmentation ?
From: Alvin Oga <aoga(at)mail.Linux-Consulting.com>
Date: Fri Nov 30 2007 - 17:53:32 EST hi ya > David Brodbeck wrote: all file systems can use a defragmentor lets assume a disk format of: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...... 63 ( aka sectors ) if you try to read/write a file starting sector 1 into your disk buffer, you may or may not have disk buffer space left to read another 512Byte from sector 2... if you wait a bit, few milliseconds for the system to services its disk interrupts, you now have disk buffer space to read sector 2 .. but since you waited too long, sector 2 came and went, so now you have to wait for a whole revolution before you can read sector 2 if you format using, than you may or may not have time to read sector 2 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 2 12 22 32 42 52 62 3 13 23 33 43 53 63 4 14... the defragmentor can be used to move sectors around to optimize reading the whole file w/o waiting for the next revolution
what you see the defragmentor showing would be a continuously allocated file instead of scattered across various sectors within a track or having to move the heads to a different tract to get to the next 512byte
there's only 512bytes per sector
the number of heads and disk buffer size would depend on your disk drive manufacturer and model# one traack is 512MB * 62 == 31.744KBytes with 16 physical heads .... you can read 509.904KBytes per revolution all un-used disk sectors belonging to a different file is read and discarded ... what a waste with 8MB or 16MB disk buffer .. you can read lots of tracks before the disk buffer is full ... there should NOT be a "slow" system
lba ...
c ya
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.orgReceived on Fri Nov 30 18:01:54 2007 This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 26 2008 - 13:07:52 EST |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||