[bookport] Re: Sluggishness and number of books in folders
- From: "Scott Duck" <sduck@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:48:42 -0500
Mike,
I don't think that defragmenting a flash card improves access speed any.
When you defragment a hard drive, you improve access time because the
read/write head doesn't have to move around as much looking for the
information that it needs. Because a flash card is memory, it doesn't have
any parts that have to move around, looking for information. Therefore,
defragmentation of a flash card doesn't do anything, from a practical sense.
At least this is my understanding.
Thanks,
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "MICHAEL MCCARTY" <mmccarty@xxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:26 AM
Subject: [bookport] Re: Sluggishness and number of books in folders
> Would running a Disk Defragger help to resolve this issue?
>
>
>
> Michael McCarty
> Fred's Head Database Coordinator
> American Printing House for the Blind
> www.aph.org
>
> >>> ptorpey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 04/26/05 08:28PM >>>
> I wrote to Larry and Rob off-line about this issue earlier today since
> I
> didn't have access to my e-mail account which was subscribed to this
> DL.
> Anyway, I have more information on this problem now.
> My earlier report indicated that the responsiveness of the Bookport was
> very
> slow for reading/navigating a book under the following conditions:
>
> 1. I am using the latest firmware (beta 27) and Bookport Transfer
> (version x.x.423)
> 2. This was a DAISY formatted book from Bookshare.
> 3. There were about 30 books in the folder.
> 4. The surprise (to me at least) was that the first 25 or so books
> in
> the folder had no problems. Reading/navigation was very responsive
> with
> these books. However, all books loaded onto the Bookport after the
> 25th or
> so book had the problem of poor responsiveness when reading.
> 5. Although APH has pointed out that we should minimize the number
> of
> books in any folder, I (mistakenly) thought that this only led to
> sluggishness when navigating from book to book, and not within a
> particular
> book. I guess this assumption was wrong.
>
> Since the "problem" books were all loaded recently (during the last
> beta or
> two), I thought that there might be a problem with either the newest
> beta
> firmware and/or transfer software. That appears not to be the case,
> and
> this seems to be more of a systemic problem.
>
> This evening, I performed the following tests to shed more light on
> the
> behavior and causes:
>
> 1. Re-downloaded one of the "problem" books into a new folder with
> only
> this book as an entry. Result - responsiveness was normal - no
> problem
> 2. Re-loaded one of the "problem" books into the original folder
> containing 30 or so books. Result: This appeared to overwrite the
> original
> book (the re-loaded book now appeared last in the list of books), and
> responsiveness was still a big problem.
> 3. Deleted all but about 5 books in the original folder of about
> 30
> books. Result: Even with fewer books now in the folder, the "problem"
> book
> still exhibited the very poor responsiveness it did when the folder
> was
> full.
> 4. Deleted the "problem" book from the original folder (now
> containing
> only about 5 books), and re-loaded it into this folder. Result - The
> book
> STILL exhibited very poor responsiveness.
>
> Thus, it seems like once a folder gets clustered with too many books
> that:
> A. The responsiveness of reading/navigation within books loaded
> last in
> the folder will suffer.
> B. Even if books are deleted from a once crowded folder, any newly
> added books will suffer from poor responsiveness when
> reading/navigating
> within the book.
>
> Does this make sense? Do folders somehow get "trashed" if once loaded
> up
> too much or will this occur even if the number of books at any one time
> is
> kept small but many books are copied and subsequently deleted from
> this
> folder?
>
> Lastly, can this be rectified? Hopefully these observations are
> helpful in
> fixing this behavior if possible.
>
> -- Pete
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
