-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Monday 2008-01-21 at 14:48 -0500, James Knott wrote:
> '80s) defragging wasn't required. Here it is almost 20 years later and
> Windows still requires it.
Requires, requires... not really. It does benefit (greatly) from it,
though.
Well then, HPFS, EXT2 etc., work fine, without worrying about it.
Fragmentation resistant file systems have been around for a long time. Why
doesn't MS use one?
I know.
Isn't ntfs more resistant?
I suppose FAT has outgrown its initial design usage for floppies and small
disks, and it has been a practical sucess, despite its shorthcommings. It
is not inherently a bad system, just... different. Other systems were
better designed.
Is not the ext2 design newer than fat? The fragmentation problem of fat
was known before linux was born.
There is another detail: IMO, fragmentation of fat occurs not because of
the format, but because of the way it is used. It would be the task of the
operating system to avoid fragmentation of the files, by writing them
properly, and even correcting them later on. The format allows for that,
but the operating system does not.
- --
Cheers,
Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
iD4DBQFHlc9ItTMYHG2NR9URAlJtAJEBpPQlUF1Nv2A9OJtKCP4+S1i6AJwMfS9t
4sJUXnAml9GoVWuhpUcPFw==
=f2S9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
