• Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Pro tip: Defragmenting only works on spinning drives because it puts the data nearer to the spindle so seek times are shorter. Solid-state drives wear out faster if you defragment them, since every write involves a little bit of damage.

    • vocornflakes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      I was about to throw hands, but then I learned something new about how SSDs store data in pre-argument research. My poor SSDs. I’ve been killing them.

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Pro tip: That tip has been obsolete for a long time now. Running the defragmentation tool on an SSD in Windows optimizes the drive (pretty much just running TRIM). It’s not possible to defragment an SSD in Windows (maybe there is a way using some register hack but that’s out of scope)

    • Alawami@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 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
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 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
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 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

          • LazerFX@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            I understood that XFS automatically mounted SSD’s with XFS_XFLAG_NODEFRAG set? Is this not the case?

            • Alawami@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 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
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 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.