I don’t think it could possibly be measured because it’s something like: (file size ÷ block size) * num_writes

So it entire depends on the types of files, how often you’re utilizing writes to disk…etc. I just wouldn’t worry about it. If you REALLY want to estimate the tax: use iostat to check the number of writes on the drive in the last 24 hours, THEN enable online defrag and check it again in 24 hours. See what the difference is.

It really doesn’t matter for HDD though. Barely probably matters for SSD.

It should be a default, but I can see why it would be disabled for SSDs to prevent using cycles unnecessarily. If you’re using HDDs, check and see if it’s enabled.

Either way, unless you’re REALLY needing some minor performance improvements out of your disks, it shouldn’t make a huge difference.

Oops, you’re right. ZFS doesn’t have that.

There is no “normal” amount of fragmentation on modern filesystems that do things like CoW. That’s kind of the point.

If you’re reading and writing large files with a consistent amount of I/O, you’re going to have a higher amount of fragmentation because of the nature of CoW. This is by design. This doesn’t mean anything is wrong with the filesystem, just that peak performance soon after writing is not achieved. Btrfs and ZFS do online defrag and deferred scheduling of tasks for it to allow for EVENTUAL consistency as far as contiguous block forms go. The more free space you have, the sooner it will become cleaner.

Possibly NTSYNC changes finally being let off the leash.

If you’re this lacking in confidence of your skills, you may have other issues to work out…

Lolol.

Your last line. Saying exactly what I’m saying, dawg.

Heel yaw 👊

Why is there a question mark in the title? We already know the answer.

Stupid ass car. Johnny Ives had like ONE really good design idea, and that was almost 30 years ago at this point.

I hate to keep being in these threads saying the same thing, but new people need to know:

THERE IS NO APPRECIABLE PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY LINUX DISTRO FOR GAMING

Doesn’t matter if it calls itself a “gaming” distro, or it wins by 10% in some benchmarks here and there. Any distro can be tuned like any other distro in every single way. No distro has any proprietary bits that make it better than another, and even if they did, you’d see devblogs or GitHub scripts you can one-shot to tune whatever you’re running to perform similarly.

Save yourself from falling for the hype, and save yourself the time of sitting through videos like this.

No, they don’t. This is another one of THOSE comments.

Any distro will work.

Both KDE and GNOME have super simple key mapping tools to set your Super key combos to whatever you want.

Remmina is probably the best RDP client available for any OS.

I don’t even know where you can get a VPS with that little memory anymore. I think this is just the nature of the kernel progressing and growing in features and size.

Maybe have a look at something like : https://github.com/trisweb/buildkern

Those are customized installs to use the most minimal disk and memory footprint possible. You sure they run a MODERN release of Debian?

Not shaming, but I think you should understand what client/server means before asking that question.

You’re looking for an answer on which to place some unfounded rage where you don’t even understand the situation.

It’s a client/server app at the end of the day. Free users still expend resources on AMD’s end, and it’s not solely client-side. If it costs them money, they will of course try to negate or recover the costs of that.

Bait for newbs. Gotta love the sensational crash outs 🤣

The article is very misleading, but the real gist is that all of these AI dipshits figured out what FPGA was, and are now flooding the zone to use it. This tool has been an absolute gift to companies looking to move to FPGA for things like ML workflows, NL processing, and semantic flows, WITHOUT needing the dumb shit GPU pricing. Better results, cheaper bills.

AMD is two steps ahead of the game in these arenas versus Nvidia, and people just figured it out, so of course they are going to start charging for it. It uses resources on their end, so they need to bill for it to make it make sense. The same way every dumbass startup gives shit away to get you hooked is the way this works.

FPGA is going to usurp the reliance on CUDA in a massive way in the next few years, and they want to get paid for the upfront work they put in to make this possible.

Not shocked at all.