At 06:56 28/08/2008, you wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:08:47 -0400
Mike Jeays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> 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.

I think they probably did, NTFS took a lot from UNIX filesystems, and
at the time it was released they said that NTFS didn't need any
defragmentation at all.

No, if you check a NTFS disk after some work, it's heavily fragmented. As you fill it and work with it, it becomes more and more fragmented.

I suspect that it's mostly a matter of attitude. Windows users have an
irrational obsessive-compulsive attitude to fragmentation, so they
end-up with good reliable defragmenters, and so less reason not to use
them. We don't really care, so we end-up with no, or poor,
defragmenters, which reinforces our don't care attitude.

The best way to defragment a NTFS drive is make a backup to other device, format the original and recover the backup. It take less time and device don't suffer. I do it monthly with the data disks and performance grows espectacularly (near x4 on sustained file read).



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
       Este documento muestra mis ideas. Son originales mias.
       Queda prohibido pensar lo mismo que yo sin pago previo.
Si estas de acuerdo conmigo PAGAME!!!! Cuidado con mi abogado MUERDE!!
_______________________________________________
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