Page 1 of 1

Flash memory and fragmentation

Posted: 2006-06-25 11:16pm
by Uraniun235
link
The received wisdom is that defragmenting solid state media such as CompactFlash and SD flash memory cards is unnecessary, at least that's what I'd always heard. With magnetic hard drives, fragmentation hurts performance because of the time it takes to physically move the drive heads around when a file is non-contiguous, but since flash memory does not have to move drive physical heads around, it makes sense that any performance loss due to fragmentation would be extremely minimal. However, it was claimed in a usenet post that in fact major benefit could be derived by defragmenting Pocket PC flash storage, but since the author of that controversial claim had not (yet) published any data to support it, I decided to investigate myself.
I'm not a big flash memory user myself, but I thought this was interesting.

Posted: 2006-06-26 01:15am
by Stark
D13 touched on this, but flash has quite a limited lifespan when measured in total operations. Moving stuff around to improve access speeds seems odd when it's seriously cutting down the total writes you've got for actual use.

Posted: 2006-06-26 03:55am
by Ace Pace
So what about the Windows Vista idea of using Flash chips as extra RAM? Would that be killing a flash drives lifespan?

Posted: 2006-06-26 03:58am
by Ypoknons
And say, how are the problems associated with flash and repeated writing to one location solved in the new 32GB (and soon 64GB) flash hard drives? Or in the hybird drives that Vista systems support, for that matter.

Posted: 2006-06-26 10:20am
by Netko
Newer drives aren't that much limited by the writes. Yes, the limit is still there, but its basicly a several years of intense usage non-stop. And all the applications (including Vista) are a bit smarter about it so its extended even more.

Posted: 2006-06-26 12:53pm
by phongn
Better flash drives (or filesystems) will also intentionally fragment in an attempt to keep the number of writes per sector down.