From: Cronos on
Rod Speed wrote:

> You're so stupid that you cant grasp that no one
> but a fool uses real world systems anything like that.
>
>

That is not the point. The point is that defrag does make a difference
and you claim it does not. My Mitsubishi Lancer is not an Evo but I
still treat it with the same care and maintenance as if it was an Evo.
From: Cronos on
Ed Light wrote:

>
> But a very fragmented large file is like a bunch of little files spread
> all over the place, isn't it?

Yes.
From: David Brown on
Cronos wrote:
> Ed Light wrote:
>
>>
>> But a very fragmented large file is like a bunch of little files
>> spread all over the place, isn't it?
>
> Yes.

No.

If you truly believe this (rather than just writing it to bug Rod), then
it's no wonder you are confused and misunderstand fragmentation and its
impact.

A very fragmented large file is like a single large file, it's just that
its contents are on different parts of the disk. It still has a single
directory entry (or inode), a single set of permissions to check, etc.,
and of course the OS's caches and read-aheads will hide almost all the
slowdown effects of the fragmentation. It is vastly easier and faster
to read a 10 MB file in a thousand fragments than a thousand 10 KB
files. Bad fragmentation will slow down the big file read by a few
percent at most, while a quick test on my machine showed that copying a
10 MB file (of unknown fragmentation) was about 20 times faster than
copying 1000 10 KB files.

From: Cronos on
David Brown wrote:

> A very fragmented large file is like a single large file, it's just that
> its contents are on different parts of the disk.

Well, duh, that is what he meant and what I meant too. Of course it is
not a file split into many smaller files but it may as well be because
the result is the same. Now you are arguing *semantics* in a poor
attempt to discredit me so take a hike.
From: Cronos on
David Brown wrote:

> Is this you (Chronos) talking, or is it a quotation (I don't want to
> accuse you of making arrogantly ignorant comments if you didn't write
> them).
>
> <snip, because it is impossible to tell who wrote what in this jumble>

No, none of it is me.