On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 18:45:12 -0500 (EST), theo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ________________________________________
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2001, Clarence Verge wrote:
>> And no.
>> Eventually, your "big" file becomes just as fragmented as your HD would be.
> No - but yes I think: As a simple example, say you put 30 little batch
> files in a zip archive
> -snip-
> Now you start editing, adding, and deleting batch files from batches.zip,
> but the size of batches.zip remains roughly the same. Will not batches.zip
> still be stored in SOME combination of 2 clusters? The particular clusters
> on the disk may change. But I dont see how the fragmentation process can
> result in batches.zip being stored in more than 2 clusters, thus wasting
> more and more space. After each change, the disk must still store the
> entire (say 2.1K) file.
Yes, this is quite true for the zip, but its internal structure is quite
unlike the "BIG" file. When you edit the contents and re-zip you write
the WHOLE file. We don't have time to re-write the whole "BIG" file when
changes are made. It has an internal structure that permits PARTS of it
to be located and re-written to the disk.
You could say it has an internal FAT. (This is a guess on my part.)
> It is true that the 2 clusters can become widely separated on the disk,
> thus increasing read access time. But I think the wasted disk space problem
> remains solved.
My concerns are more acces time than wasted space. But if I must waste
time traversing empty space, then I am interested in reducing it.
- Clarence Verge
- Still using Arachne V1.62 ....
