Jan Claeys wrote:
The main reason (IMO) why defrag is not useful (anymore) is that for
ages there hasn't been any (guaranteed) correlation between hardware
order and software order of sectors on a disk. Defragmenting disks
might actually fragment them more on a fysical level, and thus cause
Op maandag 08-10-2007 om 13:16 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Phillip
Susi:
Jan Claeys wrote:
But I think a similar API could be used to mark move bad sectors or
lost sectors, and that's more related to this discussion...
As I said, there is no need to make such an effort because ext
Op woensdag 03-10-2007 om 15:35 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Phillip
Susi:
Jan Claeys wrote:
About doing live fsck defrag on a rw filesystem, IIRC Windows NT has
a system API for doing e.g. atomic swap 2 sectors operations; does
'linux', or any of the filesystem drivers for it, support
Jan Claeys wrote:
I'm not an Ubuntu developer, but if 'badblocks' looks for hardware
defects, it's mostly useless on most hard disks in use these days. The
HDD firmware does internal bad block detection replacement (using
spare blocks on the disk reserved for that purpose). So if you can
Op dinsdag 02-10-2007 om 13:56 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Phillip
Susi:
Jan Claeys wrote:
I'm not an Ubuntu developer, but if 'badblocks' looks for hardware
defects, it's mostly useless on most hard disks in use these days. The
HDD firmware does internal bad block detection replacement
