Hacking Fragmentation is not a WBFS problem!

[Wiimm]

Fragmentation is not a WBFS problem!

I have made some tests with WBFS fragmentation. My opinion is:

• Because of the large WBFS blocks (8 MB on a 500 GB drive) the is no problem with fragmented discs.

To verify my assertion I have made a test:[*] Initialize a WBFS device.[*] Create several discs, all of size 4 GiB.[*] All but one discs use continous blocks.[*] 1 disc is splitted into 16 fragments of 256 MiB. The space between this fragments is 4 GiB.This is the memory map of my test device (WBFS blocksize = 2 MiB):

ÂÂÂÂ unused :ÂÂ off(beg) ..ÂÂ off(end) :ÂÂÂÂÂÂsize : info
ÂÂ--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂÂÂ 200000 ..ÂÂ 10200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000ÂÂÂÂ[PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ 10200000 ..ÂÂ110200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #001ÂÂÂÂ[PHT001]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ110200000 ..ÂÂ120200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000.1ÂÂ[PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ120200000 ..ÂÂ220200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #003ÂÂÂÂ[PHT003]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ220200000 ..ÂÂ230200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000.2ÂÂ[PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ230200000 ..ÂÂ330200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #005ÂÂÂÂ[PHT005]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ330200000 ..ÂÂ340200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000.3ÂÂ[PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ340200000 ..ÂÂ440200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #007ÂÂÂÂ[PHT007]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ440200000 ..ÂÂ450200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000.4ÂÂ[PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ450200000 ..ÂÂ550200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #009ÂÂÂÂ[PHT009]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ550200000 ..ÂÂ560200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000.5ÂÂ[PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ560200000 ..ÂÂ660200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #011ÂÂÂÂ[PHT011]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ660200000 ..ÂÂ670200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000.6ÂÂ[PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ670200000 ..ÂÂ770200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #013ÂÂÂÂ[PHT013]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ770200000 ..ÂÂ780200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000.7ÂÂ[PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ780200000 ..ÂÂ880200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #015ÂÂÂÂ[PHT015]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ880200000 ..ÂÂ890200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000.8ÂÂ[PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ890200000 ..ÂÂ990200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #017ÂÂÂÂ[PHT017]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ990200000 ..ÂÂ9a0200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000.9ÂÂ[PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂ9a0200000 ..ÂÂaa0200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #019ÂÂÂÂ[PHT019]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂaa0200000 ..ÂÂab0200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000.10 [PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂab0200000 ..ÂÂbb0200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #021ÂÂÂÂ[PHT021]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂbb0200000 ..ÂÂbc0200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000.11 [PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂbc0200000 ..ÂÂcc0200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #023ÂÂÂÂ[PHT023]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂcc0200000 ..ÂÂcd0200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000.12 [PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂcd0200000 ..ÂÂdd0200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #025ÂÂÂÂ[PHT025]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂdd0200000 ..ÂÂde0200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000.13 [PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂde0200000 ..ÂÂee0200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #027ÂÂÂÂ[PHT027]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂee0200000 ..ÂÂef0200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000.14 [PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂef0200000 ..ÂÂff0200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #029ÂÂÂÂ[PHT029]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ:ÂÂff0200000 .. 1000200000 :ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ128 blocks -> disc #000.15 [PHT000]
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ: 1000200000 .. 1100200000 : 100000000 : 2048 blocks -> disc #031ÂÂÂÂ[PHT031]

• The disc PHT000 is a fragmented disc.
• The disc PHT001 is a *not* fragmented at the beginning of the partition.
• The disc PHT017 is a *not* fragmented at the middle between PHT001 and PHT031
• The disc PHT031 is a *not* fragmented at the offset 64 GiB (in the middle) of the partition.

And this are the read times (copy to /dev/null) for the 4 discs:
CODEextract PHT000 ... 112 sec
extract PHT001 ... 104 sec
extract PHT017 ... 113 sec
extract PHT031 ... 127 sec

extract PHT000 ... 113 sec
extract PHT001 ... 104 sec
extract PHT017 ... 113 sec
extract PHT031 ... 127 sec

extract PHT000 ... 113 sec
extract PHT001 ... 104 sec
extract PHT017 ... 113 sec
extract PHT031 ... 126 sec

extract PHT000 ... 113 sec
extract PHT001 ... 104 sec
extract PHT017 ... 113 sec
extract PHT031 ... 127 sec

extract PHT000 ... 113 sec
extract PHT001 ... 104 sec
extract PHT017 ... 113 sec
extract PHT031 ... 127 sec

extract PHT000 ... 112 sec
extract PHT001 ... 104 sec
extract PHT017 ... 114 sec
extract PHT031 ... 126 sec

extract PHT000 ... 113 sec
extract PHT001 ... 104 sec
extract PHT017 ... 113 sec
extract PHT031 ... 127 sec

extract PHT000 ... 112 sec
extract PHT001 ... 104 sec
extract PHT017 ... 113 sec
extract PHT031 ... 127 sec

extract PHT000 ... 113 sec
extract PHT001 ... 103 sec
extract PHT017 ... 113 sec
extract PHT031 ... 127 sec

extract PHT000 ... 113 sec
extract PHT001 ... 104 sec
extract PHT017 ... 113 sec
extract PHT031 ... 127 sec

---------- SUM ----------

PHT001:ÂÂ1039 sec / 10 == 103 sec
PHT000:ÂÂ1127 sec / 10 == 112 sec &2
ÂÂÂÂexit 1
fi

{
ÂÂÂÂprintf '\n---------- INIT ----------\n\n'

ÂÂÂÂwwt init $dev -qf
ÂÂÂÂrmlist=""
ÂÂÂÂfor ((i=0;i$log
rm -f $log.tmp

 

[Cyan]

You already posted the same statement few weeks ago, but didn't included the speed test.
I see with speed, it has no incidence either.
Thank you for going fully into your tests and ideas, and letting us know what you found.

I'm still using WBFS partition and I'm happy with it.

 

[Wiimm]

You already posted the same statement few weeks ago, but didn't included the speed test.

I was convinced by logical considerations, that fragmentation is not a problem. And today I proved it with the test above.

 

[ConJ]

Thanks for posting your findings Wiimm.

 

[tueidj]

Now do the test again with random access instead of sequential.