Added a comment
This commit is contained in:
parent
488ffce640
commit
986b9caa80
1 changed files with 19 additions and 0 deletions
|
@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
|
||||||
|
[[!comment format=mdwn
|
||||||
|
username="jkniiv"
|
||||||
|
avatar="http://cdn.libravatar.org/avatar/05fd8b33af7183342153e8013aa3713d"
|
||||||
|
subject="comment 15"
|
||||||
|
date="2023-12-12T19:25:16Z"
|
||||||
|
content="""
|
||||||
|
The fact of the matter is that HDDs have gotten shittier during the past decade or so because most of them
|
||||||
|
(except for sizes above 8TB and drives meant for the enterprise) already employ SMR (shingled magnetic recording)
|
||||||
|
instead of conventional recording techniques. It seems SMR is poison to all sorts of workloads having
|
||||||
|
small files and directories being rewritten (not that drives employing it have sequential speeds that are exactly
|
||||||
|
stellar either) like what git and git-annex are doing under the hood. I bought an 6TB WD Elements desktop drive recently
|
||||||
|
(knowingly an SMR unit because non-SMR HDDs are rather expensive here in Finland) as an git-annex archival drive and I was
|
||||||
|
flabbergasted at how slow it turned out for merely syncing git metadata. I'm on Windows and have to use adjusted-unlocked
|
||||||
|
branches so there's that but NTFS on Windows is not terribly slow -- maybe not as speedy as Linux filesystems but it caches
|
||||||
|
metadata rather well, so it's ok. The problem is that while my 4TB Seagate IronWolf non-SMR drive (git-annex) syncs
|
||||||
|
in a minute or two, my new 6TB takes a minimum of *ten* minutes or so to do that. At this point I have just resigned myself
|
||||||
|
to the fact that all my future archival drives where I use regular git remotes will be slow as molasses. I'd love to own
|
||||||
|
big, fast non-SMR enterprise drives but those will be outside my budget for years to come, I'm afraid. :/
|
||||||
|
"""]]
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue