And when you want to read the actual data pointed to by the lookup table... where do you think the disk head goes? That's right, a random seek to wherever the original data was written on the disks.
Also, i'd be interested to see if there was any win in doing that because due to ZFS being copy on write - virtually every write to a file would result fragmentation. Which means every time you were to save a file, you'd need to read the entire thing in and write it out contiguously (defragmenting it). Which would likely KILL write performance, no? e.g., 20 megabyte file, you change 128k of it, you need to turn that into a 20 meg read and a 20 meg write to write a defragged version to disk.
By default, Windows will allow you to install over the top of windows without touching data. it has since at least Windows 3.1. It will warn you before wiping things out.
So you propose that we kill array performance for a bit to de-fragment? Do you have any idea how long it takes to defragment multiple terabytes of data? On a multi-user multitasking OS access is more random anyhow, so its not like your contiguous files are likely to be read sequentially anyhow.
No, for a mission critical system that actually has a workload, its probably much easier/better to just maintain free space.
And? What's your point? Is it a better game because of it? 4 slots is part of the challenge. If you could have unlimited slots it would make running up a second character quite trivial.
Actually X11 is more like a Westfield kit car. It comes in pieces and you are expected to assemble it yourself. No two builds are exactly the same and the result depends heavily on the end user. Whilst performance is decent there is no warranty and there's always the chance that a problem with some minor thing you thought was inconsequential will cause it to burn to the ground.
Meh. I think the 4 slots is fine. Yeah it sucks having to throw stuff out, but really - if you could keep every legendary you ever found, starting a new character would be no challenge at all. A maximum of 4 slots gives your new character/alt a little bit of a leg up, but you're not going to be a walking death machine right out of the blocks.
Slashdot Mirror
What's your forums.freebsd.org username?
If by "most of the functionality" you mean missing out on almost all of the headline OS X features, sure.
But Android is Linux, right?
And when you want to read the actual data pointed to by the lookup table... where do you think the disk head goes? That's right, a random seek to wherever the original data was written on the disks.
Also, i'd be interested to see if there was any win in doing that because due to ZFS being copy on write - virtually every write to a file would result fragmentation. Which means every time you were to save a file, you'd need to read the entire thing in and write it out contiguously (defragmenting it). Which would likely KILL write performance, no? e.g., 20 megabyte file, you change 128k of it, you need to turn that into a 20 meg read and a 20 meg write to write a defragged version to disk.
Agreed. Which is what OS X does if i'm not mistaken. But yeah, in theory if the file is frequently accessed it is in the ARC cache anyhow so...
It will always affect IO to an extent. If there is already an atomic IO (for defrag) in progress when you make a request, guess what?
In Munich?
Counting Android as Linux is like counting the Xbox as windows.
By default, Windows will allow you to install over the top of windows without touching data. it has since at least Windows 3.1. It will warn you before wiping things out.
Sure. But the original amiga hardware as a 68000 with no MMU.
Or they use a FreeBSD jail.
So you propose that we kill array performance for a bit to de-fragment? Do you have any idea how long it takes to defragment multiple terabytes of data? On a multi-user multitasking OS access is more random anyhow, so its not like your contiguous files are likely to be read sequentially anyhow.
No, for a mission critical system that actually has a workload, its probably much easier/better to just maintain free space.
zfs runs on linux, freebsd, solaris, mac os x. possibly elsewhere. btfrs runs on linux. try again...
ZFS was built long before oracle took over sun.
It doesn't do the same thing.
It can be resized by growing it to larger vdevs Or by adding additional vdevs. Why you would want to SHRINK a zfs filesystem is a big question.
Please reference significant adoption of btrfs.
And? What's your point? Is it a better game because of it? 4 slots is part of the challenge. If you could have unlimited slots it would make running up a second character quite trivial.
Actually X11 is more like a Westfield kit car. It comes in pieces and you are expected to assemble it yourself. No two builds are exactly the same and the result depends heavily on the end user. Whilst performance is decent there is no warranty and there's always the chance that a problem with some minor thing you thought was inconsequential will cause it to burn to the ground.
...except for Debian Stable, which will migrate 5 years after that.
Yeah because I have a heap of screens I still use from 1994.
they fixed the bee.
Exactly. Depends how YOU play and who you play with. I treat it like a LAN game with friends. That said the whole online only thing can eat a dick.
Meh. I think the 4 slots is fine. Yeah it sucks having to throw stuff out, but really - if you could keep every legendary you ever found, starting a new character would be no challenge at all. A maximum of 4 slots gives your new character/alt a little bit of a leg up, but you're not going to be a walking death machine right out of the blocks.