From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56279138010 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:49:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D3C11E079C; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:49:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gh0-f181.google.com (mail-gh0-f181.google.com [209.85.160.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E5AE0771 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:47:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ghz3 with SMTP id 3so200568ghz.40 for ; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 13:47:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=f6DI+gQZsKMjai+f/uGMPeJUcVOulXZqc1Q5pFQ3k1A=; b=lxC4qMwOsVQ5K1RGV7iivX/y0nARd8WYTkJ6wVWsxtonvnKPYGUPtammZt8Qtv5Bua ML59GhvR50q5ANiGI3BOm8dA57Rz5WOxc+ivspLlYX2iErP4JM/atQlCwaqm9cbS+T7Q rRPNR5T4ta+X5r+dRvbmzWZATBE3tIrgrNHWETVO6AoFJklXzwnlXkiW4KB9RJD04LVS 4P+dtAtKDbLggADBBEkaRIquSKTLpaHVEnpy0OfKHg1H0C2Z1eN+5MGB8byi27HZ5Rm/ ISP+GKzKeMnzN4YerPI5cQGd0IIOPThCaeFHIo0hpU/QLj4F59aoANz9y8mj+0L044M/ EfPQ== Received: by 10.236.72.99 with SMTP id s63mr24682407yhd.4.1346878023860; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 13:47:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-93-201.jan.bellsouth.net. [65.0.93.201]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k22sm59817ann.1.2012.09.05.13.47.01 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 05 Sep 2012 13:47:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5047BA43.2060308@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:46:59 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120902 Firefox/15.0 SeaMonkey/2.12 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] aligning SSD partitions References: <20120904072003.GD3095@ca.inter.net> <201209051225.18653.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> <50473F39.5080603@gmail.com> <201209051358.43675.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> <504793C5.7060909@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 62dae079-02ce-4cb7-967d-4c92d674f248 X-Archives-Hash: 4c96011154f62cc2ee0e3f5bcb4295c4 Paul Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Dale wrote: >> >> I have to say that here, it is not a whole lot of fragmentation but it >> does seem a bit faster afterwards. I guess it depends on what is >> fragmented and such. I sometimes wonder if it defrags itself. Even >> when I watch the fsck when booting, all the ext4 partitions have a very >> small percentage of fragmentation. My /boot which is ext2 is fragmented >> as heck. lol I'm not worried about it tho. ;-) When I was using >> reiserfs, it was always a good bit of fragmentation. >> >> Just thought it was worth a mention since this is the first time I saw a >> Linux defrag tool. > I think almost all linux defrag tools/techniques deal with file > fragmentation only, that is to say one file with more than 1 extent, > but don't deal with filesystem fragmentation (10000 small files > scattered all over the drive, rather than written contiguously). So > I'm not surprised that Peter did not see fragmentation after > installing KDE. > > AFAIK almost all that modern defrag tools do is just copy the file, > allocating the whole file at once in the copy process, and if that new > copy has fewer extents than the old copy, it fills in the data, then > removes the original file. The concept is not entirely dissimilar to > the old "backup, format, restore" defrag process. > > Over the years I have used a poor-man's version of that concept to > defrag files. Just move it to another drive (or -- even better -- a > ramdrive/tmpfs), then move it back to disk (with a tool that performs > preallocation). > > There is a userland defrag tool that does exactly this, on any > filesystem. It is called "shake". > > Typically I only see fragmentation on large files that were copied > from a slow source (over the network/internet), or bittorrent clients > that do not preallocate space, etc. Any kind of streaming file that > was written, huge multi-gigabyte video recording files, that kind of > stuff. But the key to avoiding file fragmentation is preallocation... > > I used shake before but it just didn't seem to work right for me. I found a script that does something and it seems to work for the most part but still not great or anything. I just like the way ext4 works. Heck, I liked it before I found the defrag tool. I've had this install for a while and it has never had much fragmentation even before the tool. So, I find it funny that they make a tool that really isn't needed very much. :/ Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!