> From: Richard Elling [mailto:rich...@nexenta.com] > > It is practically impossible to keep a drive from seeking. It is also
The first time somebody (Richard) said "you can't prevent a drive from seeking," I just decided to ignore it. But then it was said twice. (Ian.) I don't get why anybody is saying "drives seek." Did anybody say drives don't seek? I said you can quantify how much "fragmentation" is acceptable, given drive speed characteristics, and a percentage of time you consider acceptable for seeking. I suggested "acceptable" was 99% efficiency and 1% time waste seeking. Roughly calculated, I came up with 40 MB sequential data per random seek would yield 99% efficiency. For some situations, that's entirely possible and likely to be the norm. For other cases, it may be unrealistic, and you may suffer badly from fragmentation. Is there some point we're talking about here? I don't get why the conversation seems to have taken such a tangent. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
