> Are you sure about that? I've seen some really heavily fragmented NTFS
> filesystems.
Sure, fragmentation does occur, just like in any other filesystem.
> Or are you saying that fragmentation doesn't affect
> NTFS's performance?
Yup. You can of course build an artificial worst-case test tha
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 02:53:32PM -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> > David Brodbeck wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > No. The NTFS file system does not need defragmentation.
>
> all file systems can use a defragmentor
...description of interleaving deleted...
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/30/07 20:58, Sam Leon wrote:
> Alvin Oga wrote:
>> hi ya
>>
>>> David Brodbeck wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
No. The NTFS file system does not need defragmentation.
>>
>> all file systems can use a defrag
Alvin Oga wrote:
> hi ya
>
>> David Brodbeck wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> No. The NTFS file system does not need defragmentation.
>
> all file systems can use a defragmentor
>
> lets assume a disk format of:
>
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .. 63( aka sector
hi ya
> David Brodbeck wrote:
>
> On Nov 30, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > No. The NTFS file system does not need defragmentation.
all file systems can use a defragmentor
lets assume a disk format of:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .. 63( aka sectors )
if you try to read/write a
On Nov 30, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
No. The NTFS file system does not need defragmentation.
The best explanation I've heard of why they have a defragmenter for it
is that it was considered easier to write a defragmenter than to go
about explaining that FAT32 just sucks.
Are you
> Note: by the way I think the filesystem present in Vista still need to be
> defrag...well, once again a feature that was announced but not delivered by
> Bill (please do not hesitate to correct me on these assumptions as I'm not a
> user of such $$$ product).
No. The NTFS file system does n
On Nov 18, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Nov 17, 5:00 am, Bruno Costacurta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
it appears that ext3 doesn't need a real defragmentation operation
(by 'real'
I mean a specific tool that need to be run sometimes related to
disk usage).
Is it correc
On Nov 17, 5:00 am, Bruno Costacurta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> it appears that ext3 doesn't need a real defragmentation operation (by 'real'
> I mean a specific tool that need to be run sometimes related to disk usage).
>
> Is it correct ?
Right.
> If so how it works ?
It shoots for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/17/07 22:10, Sam wrote:
> Hi Kamaraju,
>
> I am also not an expert in filesystems, however, I do know that the new
> native linux fs ext3 has what is called "journaling". Linux keeps track
> of where everything goes, so it doesnt get disorganize
Hi Kamaraju,
I am also not an expert in filesystems, however, I do know that the new
native linux fs ext3 has what is called "journaling". Linux keeps track of
where everything goes, so it doesnt get disorganized. Once in a while you
could run fsck if your really concerned about it.
On 11/17/07,
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:46:56 +0100, Bruno Costacurta wrote:
> Hello,
> it appears that ext3 doesn't need a real defragmentation operation (by
> 'real' I mean a specific tool that need to be run sometimes related to
> disk usage).
>
> Is it correct ?
> If so how it works ?
I am not a file system
Hello,
it appears that ext3 doesn't need a real defragmentation operation (by 'real'
I mean a specific tool that need to be run sometimes related to disk usage).
Is it correct ?
If so how it works ?
Related to ext3 standard setup (see tune2fs) the disk is check by default
every 30 boots or 30 da
13 matches
Mail list logo
