• @Alawami@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    6
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Random reads are still slower than sequential in SSD. try torrenting for a year on SSD, then benchmark then defragment then benchmark. it will be very measureable difference. you may need some linux filesystem like XFS as im not sure if there is a way to defrag SSDs in windows.

    • @LazerFX@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      45 months ago

      That’s because the drive was written to its limits; the defrag runs a TRIM command that safely releases and resets empty sectors. Random reads and sequential reads /on clean drives that are regularly TRIMmed/ are within random variance of each other.

      Source: ran large scale data collection for a data centre when SSDs were relatively new to the company so focused a lot on it, plus lots of data from various sectors since.

      • @Alawami@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I’m pretty sure running XFS defrag will defrag without trimming no matter the type of block device.

        Edit: yea you might actually be right. I Played with my fstab too much years ago, and never thought of that untill now

          • @Alawami@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            25 months ago

            yea you might actually be right. I Played with my fstab too much years ago, and never thought of that until now

            But does that flag affect manually running xfs_fsr?

            • @LazerFX@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              25 months ago

              According to the man(8) page, it will avoid touching any blocks that have the chattr -f flag set, which is XSR_XFLAGS_NODEFRAG… So I think if the docs are still accurate to the code, yes.

              A lot of ifs in that assumption.