On Mar 1, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
Lowell Gilbert wrote:
If you know the standard computer science terminology, it can be
described quite tersely. UFS fragmentation is a way of avoiding
internal fragmentation from wasting too much space. MS-DOS-FS
fragmentation is an example of external fragmentation in the storage
space. They don't really have anything to do with each other.
It looks like I actually AM arguing about semantics here:
"UFS fragmentation" refers to dividing blocks (e.g. 16KB in size) into
block fragments (e.g. 2KB in size) that can be allocated separately in
special circumstances (which all boil down to: at the end of files).
This is done to lessen the effect of internal fragmentation.
"Fragmentation" without "UFS" prefix, as mostly used today (and which
I
believe it's how the original poster understands it) refers to dividing
files into non-continuous regions, i.e. external fragmentation.
Correct so far?
"% fragmentation" message from fsck cannot refer to internal
fragmentation as the numbers don't add up, so it almost certainly
refers
to external fragmentation.
This discussion has been about UFS vs MS file system. But I have been
using Macs and have run file system utilities, Norton, and watched it
defrag
a Mac disc. I am just curious as to how the HFS and HFS+ file systems
fit
into this picture. Particularly since OSX is essentially a Unix 'like'
system
but still uses HFS+
Just for some perspective and idle curiosity.
Thanks
Jeff K
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
