From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MY4tP-0007gJ-LJ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:16:28 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A7175E0338; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:16:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88493E0338 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:16:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3977064142 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:16:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -3.726 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.726 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wPxjk-jLaaxr for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:16:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9B664BBF for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:16:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MY4tE-00062r-1U for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:16:16 +0000 Received: from mn-69-34-67-62.sta.embarqhsd.net ([69.34.67.62]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:16:16 +0000 Received: from grant.b.edwards by mn-69-34-67-62.sta.embarqhsd.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:16:16 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Grant Edwards Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Anybody tried shake defragmenter? Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:16:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <49bf44f10908031322y2b06b5ffx76ecb27092b9edfa@mail.gmail.com> <58965d8a0908031405g1cf04cbarc77d588072fdbe89@mail.gmail.com> <200908032311.50608.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: mn-69-34-67-62.sta.embarqhsd.net User-Agent: slrn/pre0.9.9-102 (Linux) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 2112b6ce-d61e-4153-bc4b-2eabd1ac686e X-Archives-Hash: 86fdb5a9d5471535a7d34a5361d1ced4 On 2009-08-03, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Monday 03 August 2009 23:05:02 Paul Hartman wrote: > >> The time-honored way of fixing this is "backup, delete, >> restore". In my case my simple defragmenter is to move a file >> to tmpfs and then move it back to the hard drive. I always do >> this to files I'm about to burn to a CD/DVD to ensure the read >> speed is optimal. > > Until one day someone write a super-duper disk cache algorithm > that delays writes safely, notices that you are putting back > unmodified something you just deleted, then reverts "to be > deleted" flag on the block pointers. meaning that nothing has > changed. > > Lucky for us, I do not believe that such a driver has been > written yet. Unlucky for us, I believe that such a driver is > entirely possible. And actually quite simple once the content-addressable-disk-drive is invented. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Didn't I buy a 1951 at Packard from you last March visi.com in Cairo?