On August 27, 2008 09:35:42 pm Fred C wrote:
> Maybe it is because FAT filesystem wasn't well designed from the
> beginning and defrag was a workaround to solve performances problems.
>
> -fred-
>
> On Aug 27, 2008, at 5:29 PM, prad wrote:
> > something that has puzzled me for years (but i've never got around to
> > asking) is how does *nix get away without regular defrag as with
> > windoze.
> >
> > fsck is equivalent to scandisk, right?
> >
> > so when you delete files and start getting 'holes', how does *nix deal
> > with it?
> >
> > --
> > In friendship,
> > prad
> >
> >                                      ... with you on your journey
> > Towards Freedom
> > http://www.towardsfreedom.com (website)
> > Information, Inspiration, Imagination - truly a site for soaring I's
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> > "[EMAIL PROTECTED] "
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

That's true about FAT.  What I have never understood is why Microsoft didn't 
fix the problem when they designed NTFS.  UFS and EXT2 both existed at that 
time, and neither needs periodic defragmentation.

-- 
Mike Jeays
http://www.jeays.ca
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to