| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Grey Stormshadow
Starwreck Industries
   |
Posted - 2011.06.04 11:19:00 -
[31]
Um... right :)
In optimal situation brains do not return hardware errors when code is executed. Unfortunately sometimes this is not the case.
-------------------------------------------------
Play with the best - die like the rest
starwreck.com - support the cause :) |
Angel of Night
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 14:01:00 -
[32]
Incoming 700+ MB expansion - start your defragmenters |
SNeAkYbRiT
Gunslingers Corp
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 14:07:00 -
[33]
wow 3 dev replies in one thread must be a none related game thread.
Yep all here to talk about defraging amazing...shame u cant answer in force on other threads that mean alot to your customers, but defragging, glad that we have expert all around to help us.
|
Liva Daril
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 14:08:00 -
[34]
Ugh!
Why did you have to revive this stupid thread again?
Please lock for stupidity.
|
Reeper 2435
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 14:11:00 -
[35]
Glad i spent that time training defrag to 5.
|
Angel of Night
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 14:13:00 -
[36]
Bumping this was part of the downtime entertainment package  |
Captain Von Teapot
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 14:15:00 -
[37]
Do what we did with the Sparc's everynight if your that worried. Back it all up. Format the disk. Restore the backup. Keep nightshift on it's toes (lazy farkers).
Of course those array's were being hammered harder than your ikkle disk's theoretical maximum throughput so it might be a tad overkill but hey, you wanted to defrag and kill it & restore is the best way.
|
voodoo
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 14:20:00 -
[38]
 Originally by: CCP Atropos
Originally by: okst666
I know that.
I want a patch actually to patch..modify a file. That wont really change much in the filesystem, because the clusters are allready aligned. Todays harddrives have so huge clustersizes, a "patch" wont break their .. hm..dont know the right word..measurements.
Everything that does not bytewise modifies a file is not a patch...it is a replacement or update or something completly different. it is everything, but not a patch.
Well in that case, no, that's not how our patcher works, and it's not something we're intending to add in. What you're suggesting is handled by the OS.
I do have one question though, if you have a file of, say, 20 bytes, and the "modification" process modifies 2 bytes and then adds in 10 more, giving a 30 byte final filesize, how does this process you desire handle the source file being blocked on either side. By that I mean the blocks immediately proceeding and following the source file are in use giving the file no room to "grow". Gaving the filesystem create a duplicate would be a lengthy process, and moving the other files around require potentially even more disk IO, so... in that light does the current method not work better?
it seems your logic has caused the op to vanish.
.
. |
Angel of Night
|
Posted - 2011.08.05 13:56:00 -
[39]
Bumping for weekend entertainment
Defragmenters unite!  |
Reeper 2435
|
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:04:00 -
[40]
Wow, you guys broke my geekometer. QUICK, more beer for the devs!
P.S. So long as eve works, who cares.
|
|
|
Vice Admiral Spreadsheet
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:55:00 -
[41]
OP:
1. Buy SSD
2. Fill with stuff
3. Defrag
4. Defrag
5. Defrag
6. Defrag
...
1499. Defrag
1500. Defrag
Upon seeing the end result, your addiction to defragging should be cured.
|
Agonising Ecstacy
|
Posted - 2011.08.05 15:00:00 -
[42]
Of all the things you could be upset about, this is top of your list?
Even in the most ideal situation, if patching a file changes its size in any way, your OS would have to pick a new clean block to expand the file into. This will fragment the file. The patcher being used might not be optimum, but dude, you are never going to get a perfectly defragged disk, *after* patching, unless you are asking the patcher to defrag as it goes - which would make the patching process take hours, not seconds. If its important to you, defrag after patching.
Also, the idea that patching will be faster on a defragged disk may be true, but 'defrag + patch' is never going to be faster than 'patch'. The x-minutes defragging is always going to swamp the x-microseconds you save patching...
Stop trying to justify your OCD, and go check that the fridge light is off. You did check when you shut the door right? right?
SK
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
|
Posted - 2011.08.05 15:15:00 -
[43]
Originally by: okst666
Edited by: okst666 on 03/06/2011 21:43:30
Originally by: Sader Rykane
So your upset about something that has zero impact on your actual ability to play the game and/or the performance of the game in general?
Ladies and Gentleman we have our newest low for the eve player base!
It might not keep my from playing, but it distracts me in something of a higher order...something like integrity of my harddrives filesytem...
edit1: UNDERSTAND: IT IS NOT ABOUT EVEONLINE, IT IS ABOUT HOW IT RUINS MY FILESYSTEMS ORDER!!!! I WANT THINGS IN PLACE... GAME PATCH DOES NOT!
edit: I totally know that it is totally uninteressting if my harddrive is cluttered or not and it doesnt matter at all, BUT I WANT IT IN ORDER !!!!
Hello Mr. Anal. It appears you are retaining something...
Seriously, you're new to OS file systems, aren't you? It don't work that way.
(Either that, or you're a very, very good troll. Kudos.)
"Here's your sign..."
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |