3 ms·
I can’t state any more clearly: minimize the production of garbage. “Surely some % of garbage helps as you're garbage collecting ” Garbage that doesn’t exist
by epcoa 3y ago
I can’t state any more clearly: minimize the production of garbage.
“Surely some % of garbage helps as you're garbage collecting ”
Garbage that doesn’t exist doesn’t need collecting.
The flaw here is confusing free space with garbage. You shouldn’t have written in the first place if you could have avoided it.
Every environmentalist knows this: RRR, the first R is reduce not recycle.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dragontamer 3y agoAny append-only data-structure will have data that was true (when it was written), but has become false/obsolete/garbage at a later time. This is unavoidable. I'm not saying that we write needless garbage to the logs or filesystem or whatever. I'm saying that the amount of garbage in your stream that you leave behind aids in later steps of (static) wear-leveling. So therefore, its not a big deal. You're going to be making plenty of this (initially true data, but later garbage data) as files get updated, moved around filesystems, or whatnot. "Garbage" in this sense is perhaps the wrong word. Its more like "Obsolete data", or "outdated data".
- ncruces 3y agoIf you read the article though, many of the updated nodes (which are now garbage) don't see any updates to their “data” but to internal tree pointers. So lots of “data” is being copied, and garbage is being generated, only for the benefit of tidying up tree structure, not because the actual “data” in those pages changed. Not generating such garbage in the first place is an obvious benefit.
- dragontamer 3y agoI think I see what you mean now. Thanks.