Subject: Re: Bad side effect of "newdirpref"
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Thomas E. Spanjaard <email@example.com>
Date: 08/21/2006 19:23:27
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 01:57:22PM -0400, Charles M. Hannum wrote:
>>Given the simplistic "block rotor" used for block allocation, reducing
>>the number of CGs can *only* make the problem worse.
> I don't think that's necessarily the case: consider the extreme case
> where there's only one CG. Clearly, the problem is not worse. For a
> disk of the same size, less CGs means less likelihood that any given
> CG is full; obviously, there's a balance against the longer seek to the
> next CG that a larger CG yields, but I don't think the result is as
> blindingly obvious as you do.
I think mycroft's argument is that a concurrent process busy in the same
CG dramatically reduces I/O throughput available for te DVD burner.
Which is not unfeasible, as in the late nineties CD-R(W) burners had
issues with buffer underruns because the host machines couldn't handle
the I/O throughput necessary. As DVD 1x is about CD 9x, it's not hard to
imagine this having an influence.
Thomas E. Spanjaard
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----