Tony Nugent wrote:
>
> On Sun May 03 1998, "Hilary Luk" wrote:
>
> > In a month before, some guys here tell me ext2 fs is self maintain, not
> > easy fragment. While my ext2 fs become 10% of fragmentation.
>
> 10% fragmentation isn't too bad at all, especially when...
>
> > I think it is because my linux act as server for OS/2, Windows clients.
>
> As your ext2 partition fills, fragmentation will get worse. Even so, it
> will never be as bad as hpfs or fat can get.
>
> > Should I do anything to defragmentation the fs ?
>
> Emphatically, no. The efficiency gains are just not worth the effort - nor
> the risks!
>
> One very good word of advice... don't bother defragmenting your ext2
> filesystems... let them sort themselves out.
>
> > If yes, which utility should have ?
>
> There are "defragmenters" around the place, but don't bother with them.
>
> Messing about with ext2 filesystems at this low level is just asking for
> trouble in the long run. It's a very efficient filesystem anyway.
>
> Cheers
> Tony .
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] _--_|\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> UNIX Systems Officer / *\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Faculty of Science \_.--._/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Uni of Southern Queensland v Toowoomba Australia
> -=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-
Mmmm, I do not disagree, but could you point me to documentation where I
can
verify these statments?
I heard a lot about ext2 fs being efficient and that the world will end
in the
year 2000, but nobody demostrates its veracity :-)
Don�t get mad at me, my problem is that I overdeveloped my scientific
way of thinking.
Thanks,
Dario
