Defragmenting my drives manually is one of those things like closing apps on my phone I am not using. Everyone says there is no need to do it. It might even be slightly worse overall. I even have enough self control to avoid doing it and have for years...
But deep down in my heart, I truly FEEL like if I did it would improve things... somehow.
I too am nearly certain that the positive benefits are approaching nil, but I still feel it should be helpful.
I'd be curious to know the reqson why she would care on her own phone and why it would be an issue on someone else's phone?
Despite this, many of my relatives have somehow learned this habit of opening the switcher and closing all apps when they are done with them.
But the switcher shows every app ever opened and tries to pretend these apps aren't being closed. Right now for instance, i just checked and as best i can tell, the last 3 were open. going back any further and i could tell the app had to reload. but i can scroll to the left back forever. the one on the furthest left i easily haven't opened for months
That being said, I dislike having 3 dozen apps open because I simply can’t quickly find and switch to the ones I’m using. So when I enter a new situation, I swipe all the way left, and Clear All apps, to start over with a tabula rasa.
Open it, and it opens a list of recently searched for apps. The focus is on the top search bar (and the keyboard has also popped up), and I can type to find any app I have installed.
This is on a slow device but it might be worse on a fast one as the extra allocation of small extents start to hit harder on the host side:
(fragmented relative to baseline) bandwidth: 100.65 -> 94.74 MiB/s (-5.86%) elapsed time: 339.550 -> 360.699 s (+6.23%) mean latency: 9935.7 -> 10554.6 us (+6.23%) p50 latency: 6715.2 -> 6838.9 us (+1.84%) p95 latency: 19394.4 -> 20599.9 us (+6.22%) p99 latency: 131498.2 -> 131988.3 us (+0.37%) max latency: 183713.2 -> 624392.9 us (+239.87%) jitter stddev: 17823.1 -> 19806.0 us (+11.13%) jitter CV: 179.38 -> 187.65% (+4.61%)
Also check your nvme granularity with fstrim -D if you are on 4KB your nvme is so fine grain that it doesn't matter much but if it is 64KB like my main one. Ouch, those small files in the middle of the 64KB won't magically go away.
The purpose is to have a sense of when ZFS may developing trouble quickly finding contiguous blocks of free space to dump new data into. Mostly only a concern for high active and highly full pools. When you start watching the number climb past double digits, you may start finding performance issues but it’s a very contextual thing, rather than “at x value it’s bad”.
Basically it has nothing to do with written file fragmentation, or potential read speed.
Because ZFS is a copy on write filsystem, attempts at defragmentation an active pool are generally not effective. An exception would be a pool that is full of large files that was written in a non contiguous way (like torrents), in which case copying the data to a new dataset and deleting the old roughly achieves the purpose. Or you could use something like https://github.com/salesforce/zfs_defrag
Indeed torrents were the most obvious cause of the fragmentation I saw.
It's like those copper bangles with magnets that people swear makes their joints less creaky.
My example is a daith piercing, that's when you pierce a ring through a fold of cartilage in a certain spot inside your ear. It's supposed to stop you getting migraines, but there's no sensible mechanism for this to work. It's all woo and bunkum, apparently.
But I've had four migraines in eight years as opposed to four every month.
So, if it feels faster, it might well be.
Otherwise the claimed defragmentation here is not actually resulting in sequential data.
Which is rather a case for home use, not practical for highly parallel access industrial use cases. That's why the issue became a research topic. For the first time I saw a proof that the "fact" SSDs do not need defragmentation is actually a myth. Well, you still want to avoid explicit defragmentation (waste of time and SSD lifetime) by filesystem driver submitting additional hints (using new NVMe extensions) to the SSD controller about what blocks belong to the same file, so that SSD can place them for an optimal sequential access with properly interleaving (not necessary strictly physically consecutively whatever this means on SSD).
I haven't measured it but the SSD firmware should be able to look up where the next block is speculatively in order to be able to immediately start sending it if the host tries and read the next block (as opposed to a random one).
contiguous fragmented
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PCIe 4.0 NVMe Read Speed ~5,000 – 7,000 MB/s ~80 – 250 MB/s
SATA 3.0 SSD Read Speed ~500 – 550 MB/s ~30 – 60 MB/s
> You are giving up virtually 0% to 3% of real-world performance. In daily development, media editing, and standard system use, defragmenting your SSD will yield no human-noticeable speedup.