Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA))

Thomas Zimmerman
2002-10-10T20:51:26Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1311 bytes --]

On Tue, 08 Oct 2002 10:09:38 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Well the initial approach was to put the minimum functionality
> in-kernel and drive it all from userspace. I that proved to
> be inadequate then the kernel-side might need to be grown.
>
> I'd expect that a defrag would be a batch process which is done
> during quiet times. Although one _could_ have a `defragd' which
> ticks along all the time I suppose.
>
> A defragmentation algorithm probably would not be a "per file" thing;
> it would need to gather a fair amount of state about the fs, or
> at least an individual block group before starting to shuffle things.

I seem to remember a "drive optimzier" on an old SE Mac. It would move
files and dirs about so that commonly used files all sat together. It
would run in the background too...after the disk was idle for about 5
minuest (configurable, iirc) it would go to work moving things about. It
really helped, as programs and used libs usually all sat in nice self
contained directories. I wounder if load times could be significantly
reduced by having libraries/programs fault in w/o all the seeking that
goes on on X load; as I first test, I guess, I'll have to see if
"prefaulting" all the X/kde dependences in help much.

Thomas "all lurk, no code" Zimmerman

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]