Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I believe that a "fragmented file" in common usage refers to a file >> which is not stored continuously on the drive - i.e. it occupies more >> than one continuous region. How is UFS fragmentation different than >> fragmentation on other kinds of file systems? > > That common usage refers to Windows filesystems. > > In unix filesystems, fragmentation refers to the number of blocks that have > been broken down in to fragments to either hold files smaller than a block, > or (as you mentioned) use the space at the end of a file that doesn't fit > exactly in a block. Ok, so the difference is in the name, not in the semantics :) Unfortunately, all the world is Windows now and that's why I try to use "block fragments" instead of just "fragments" to try avoid confusion. > But this also makes it _easy_ for the filesystem to avoid causing the type > of fragmentation that _does_ degrade performance. For example, when the > first block is on track 10, then the next block is on track 20, then we're > back to track 10 again, then over to track 35 ... etc, etc > > Keep in mind, that in the previous 3 paragraphs, I was using the "Windows" > definition of "fragmentation." Agreed.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature