@smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de to linuxmemes@lemmy.worldEnglish • 2 months agomv Windows Linuxdiscuss.tchncs.deimagemessage-square106fedilinkarrow-up11.01Karrow-down130
arrow-up1977arrow-down1imagemv Windows Linuxdiscuss.tchncs.de@smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de to linuxmemes@lemmy.worldEnglish • 2 months agomessage-square106fedilink
minus-squareSonotsugipaalinkfedilinkEnglish1•2 months agoI’m very confused by this thread. Progress bars are handled by the applications themselves, whether flushing happens or not; immediate flushing does not increase storage lifespan, in fact letting the OS decide when to do it may allow wear-leveling to work better. (Though, IMO immediate flushing should be the default for removable media on user-friendly distributions, like swap partitions are)
minus-square@smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.deOPlinkfedilink2•2 months ago Progress bars are handled by the applications themselves Yes, but OS must tell the application how much of the operation is done immediate flushing does not increase storage lifespan I was trying to say the opposite. Caching/buffering is what longers the lifespan and can speed system up
I’m very confused by this thread.
Progress bars are handled by the applications themselves, whether flushing happens or not;
immediate flushing does not increase storage lifespan, in fact letting the OS decide when to do it may allow wear-leveling to work better.
(Though, IMO immediate flushing should be the default for removable media on user-friendly distributions, like swap partitions are)
Yes, but OS must tell the application how much of the operation is done
I was trying to say the opposite. Caching/buffering is what longers the lifespan and can speed system up