Timeline for SSD partitioning
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 18, 2020 at 12:50 | comment | added | Attie | @Kaveh - that's generally a very bad idea as you'll be incurring a lot of erase cycles on the flash for no benefit... SSDs don't suffer from the same performance loss due to fragmentation as spinning disks, because the "seek time" of SSDs is fairly insignificant, and is also very consistent regardless of the previous access's location. | |
| Feb 18, 2020 at 9:22 | comment | added | Kaveh | What happens if I do a defragmentation on a SSD? Will the SSD Controller tell the OS that it did it, but it actually ignores it? | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 10:24 | comment | added | Benj | Thanks for this really neat and interesting answer. Super nice ! | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 19:42 | comment | added | Attie | @MontyHarder good spot, thanks... that stuff always gets me! | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 19:41 | history | edited | Attie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 10, 2020 at 19:41 | comment | added | Attie | @doneal24 true, physical / logical association of blocks (aka sectors) was much stronger in the past, though this was an artefact of the underlying storage (etc...), not an explicit promise by the partitioning that was in place.. partitions have always been a logical assignment of space. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 19:26 | comment | added | doneal24 |
I would disagree with it never was a physical operation anyway. In ancient times, partition tables did agree with physical sector layouts and you could measure differences in disk performance depending on if the partition was on the inner cylinders compared to ones on outer cylinders.
|
|
| Feb 10, 2020 at 18:29 | comment | added | Monty Harder | The partition sizes are one too small. Partition #1 starts at location 8, and runs through to location 456 (i.e: it's 449 units in size). Partition #2 starts at location 504, and runs through to location 904 (i.e: it's 401 units in size). Subtracting the "start" from the "finish" misses the "start" location itself. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 14:45 | comment | added | Eric Hauenstein | The diagrams really make this an excellent answer. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 14:07 | comment | added | Attie | Sounds reasonable to me... This is what it means for the eMMC "partitioning" I mentioned - a range of flash cells are specifically allocated to a partition, and may never be used by another partition. The logical to physical mapping and wear levelling still occurs, though it is bounded to the partition's region of physical flash. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 12:47 | comment | added | Stack Exchange Supports Israel | I guess "physically partitioned" means that each bit of iron oxide is always owned by a certain partition? | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 9:48 | vote | accept | Kaveh | ||
| Feb 9, 2020 at 23:01 | history | edited | Attie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Feb 9, 2020 at 13:13 | history | edited | Attie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Feb 9, 2020 at 13:00 | history | edited | Attie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Feb 9, 2020 at 12:55 | history | edited | Attie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Feb 9, 2020 at 12:48 | history | edited | Attie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 249 characters in body
|
| Feb 9, 2020 at 12:38 | history | answered | Attie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |