flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Petabox and the death of NTFS

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
revolution: I don't use compression to conserve space, but to make reading static files faster...
Post 03 Mar 2009, 12:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17247
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
I don't use compression on my system for the reason that the defrag software is so braindead that it makes things worse. Not a fault of NTFS as such, but the tools that work with it.


Last edited by revolution on 04 Mar 2009, 09:49; edited 1 time in total
Post 03 Mar 2009, 12:24
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
f0dder wrote:
revolution: I don't use compression to conserve space, but to make reading static files faster...
Exactly, seeing as how the hard drive is still a slow bastard Wink

revolution: Google for free defrag software Smile

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 03 Mar 2009, 18:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17247
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Yes, HDDs are slow, but still faster than I can write. And still MUCH faster than they used to be, they are getting gradually faster but are limited by the mechanical aspects.

As for free defrag software, I've tried so many and none of them can cope with my data. The only one that could was a commercial product (not saying the name here) which I bought (and regret wasting money on), but still with compressed files it got lost with how to cope properly. So I gave up, and now don't use compression, I find it easier to buy bigger HDDs.

So when the all solid state petabyte data storage units (can't really call them "drives") come out we can delete all the defrag software.
Post 04 Mar 2009, 00:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
Yes, HDDs are slow, but still faster than I can write.
If you mean that literally then just LOL Very Happy

Also what's so bad with the Windows Defrag Tool? Sometimes it doesn't figure out but most time it does -- even if a bit slow, I don't care (I don't defrag often seeing as how most of the "big" data is "read-only").

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 05 Mar 2009, 02:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17247
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
If you mean that literally then just LOL Very Happy
Yes, I meant that literally. How fast can you type?
Borsuc wrote:
Also what's so bad with the Windows Defrag Tool?
You're kidding, right? What is good about it? For Mr. Joe Average with 1000 porn movies it is probably fine, but for my system it is worse than useless.
Post 05 Mar 2009, 02:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
Yes, I meant that literally. How fast can you type?
Fast but not a harddrive's speed. Razz

revolution wrote:
You're kidding, right? What is good about it? For Mr. Joe Average with 1000 porn movies it is probably fine, but for my system it is worse than useless.
No I'm talking about big files, for the small ones you can just use something like WinContig or do it yourself manually (move the files on some other partition and then move them back).

But for big (read-only) files it is fine.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 05 Mar 2009, 02:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17247
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
But for big (read-only) files it is fine.
You must have a different version than me. Either that or you are talking about a completely different program. Because I can't get it to work for me at all. It throws a hissy fit when it sees my drives and refuses to do anything useful, like actually defragmenting something.
Post 05 Mar 2009, 02:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Weird. Once I had almost 40% of my partition fragmented like crazy. It defragged properly (yeah slow but at least worked with compression). Confused
Post 05 Mar 2009, 02:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
The defrag that comes with Windows does suck donkey balls. It works reasonably (even if somewhat retarded wrt. how it moves stuff aruond) on partitions with a lot of free space, but once partitions fill up, it's mostly useless.

The best defrag app I've come across was Nuts&Bolts defrag back in the Win9x/FAT32 days - did a lot of pre-planning and worked like a charm. These days, the app that has works best for me would be RAXCO PerfectDisk. It's big & bloated and compressed files does slow it down somewhat, but it gets the job done well.
Post 05 Mar 2009, 14:30
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
You guys have your HD too full, that's why it works for me Laughing
Post 05 Mar 2009, 16:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Borsuc wrote:
You guys have your HD too full, that's why it works for me Laughing
What's the point of having large a harddrive if you don't utilize it? Smile

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 05 Mar 2009, 16:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
There isn't. Who says I want one? It's just that I can't find a smaller one with enough buffer Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 05 Mar 2009, 21:09
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
"Enough buffer"? If you're talking the cache size, iirc one of the hardware sites found size difference in cache today to be pretty irrelevant :-s
Post 06 Mar 2009, 00:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Yeah well they call it "buffer" around here for some reason. I'm planning on getting one with 32MB. Doesn't the buffer make it used less and thus increase its lifespan?

I admit I'm noob here but I read this somewhere.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 06 Mar 2009, 03:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
That's the theory yes (and with Command Queuing you'd expect more cache to be even better), but apparently there's not much advantage even when going from 8->16meg cache...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/understanding-hard-drive-performance,1557-14.html
[quote=tomshardware]we found that there is hardly any difference between two drives that only differ in their cache sizes: 16 MB cache has no significant advantage over 8 MB across our benchmark suite, and this applies both to Serial ATA and to UltraATA drives.[/quote]

The same seems to apply to 16meg vs. 32meg... unless somebody can dig up a benchmark showing advantages of disk cache. Situation would probably be different if there was no OS filesystem cache going on, though...
Post 06 Mar 2009, 08:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
the larger the drive is, the best it is because:

you can make every good things evocated above.

when browsing the internet, you will probably reload a page you still visited. then, for speed and for autonomy, you can save a page on your computer.
a single checksum indicates you a change in the content and you will update the page. instead of reloading pages everytimes.
your computer will then have a big place for internet cache.

for media, it is the same, you will load only one time a media, and after, it will be in your machine forever, exactlly as our memory works.

for edition, it will be an advantage, your work will be a function of time, and then, you willl know exactlly what you've done and when. pretty cool when coding a big project.

when communicating, it will be possible to memorise everything.

etc etc

and big brother will be able to watch us if we are not carefull with file sharing.
Post 06 Mar 2009, 09:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
edfed: page cache isn't done by checksum but by last-modified timestamp. And a lot of content these days is generated dynamically, so you will always get updated pages, except for some static elements like images. You also might want not to cache content from servers that utilize SSL.

Work as a function of time, dunno about that... but we already have systems like subversion that work great. Even if we had unlimited storage, I think "snapshots" (commits) are more useful development-wise. "Storing every change" might be useful wrt. backup, though.
Post 06 Mar 2009, 09:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17247
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
At least one person agrees that we will get 1PB HDDs
Maybe when the first petabyte drive (that's a thousand terabytes) makes its debut, it will sell for under a hundred bucks.
Notice the word "when" and not the word "if". So ya see, it will happen, it is just a matter of when.
Post 01 Apr 2009, 21:23
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Wasn't it about 16 exabytes or something?
People still buy 160 GB drives which they don't even use.

But the main concerns here are probably not usage (although I think it will be) but physical limits.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 01 Apr 2009, 21:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.