Mail Archives: opendos/1997/02/14/22:31:29
On 14 Feb 97, Colin W. Glenn <cwg01 AT gnofn DOT org> wrote
Subject: Re: [opendos] Stacker and OpenDos:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 soabs AT hermes DOT svf DOT uib DOT no wrote:
> > Now, after I got my Internet connections and started e-mailing, I
> > found Stacker reported heavy disk fragmentation more often than before.
> > I then setup my e-mail client on the new E: drive, and after doing
>
> If I may bother you with a question, if all you're using the 'E:' drive
> for is email, why are you bothering to defrag it at all?
Yes you may :-). But, I must answer with a question. Why shouldn't I ?
Does it make more sense if I say I also save and store mail, for
instance FAQs and Web pages, retrieved my mail? Thus, I don't delete
everything, but keep it in mail folders. The way my e-mail client
(Pegasus) saves individual messages in folders (one folder=one file)
and keep tracks of the messages in a separate index file (one per
folder), which make sorting them very fast, and the way it lets me
build a hierarchy of folders and trays (folders inside trays, trays
inside trays and so on), and at the same time has some simple search
capabilities - and offers some flexible filtering options, well, it
makes it nice filing system for my purposes. (breath). Well, anyway,
does the above make more sense when I say I also keep stuff on my E
drive, rather than use it for read and delete (mail ) only?
Even if everything actually resides in a large file on disk (the
stackvol file), I would think doing a defrag (inside the stackvol file,
yes?) would speed up Stacker acces to data in that file, while also
prevent file corruption (mismanagement) . No?
My question still remains, and let me rephrase it slightly: Is it
possible that chunking up a disk in several compressed volumes might
improve the total performance, comparered to having all data
compressed into one single compressed volume? Or will this,
theoretically or practically, at some point, result in some kind of
data management overhead, where to much time is spent on accessing
(yet) another drive to get things done? (where data from all the
compressed drives must me de-compressed when handed over to
memory/processor) Or ? I don't know. I'm just saying I experienced a
performance boost after *splitting* up one compressed volume into two.
Theoretically, I don't have a clue. I'm just trying to grasp this from
my simple point of view - and wonder if any one understands what I am
asking - and maybe also know the answer, or what this depends on? :-)
Bjorn
mailto:Bjorn DOT Simonsen AT aorg DOT uib DOT no
- Raw text -