> This is one of the things I find really hard to get Windows users to > understand. They just won't believe that a company like Microsoft would > still be using a filesystem that needs defragmenting if it were possible > to design one that didn't. I often wonder why myself - after all, they > must have put a fair amount of work into NTFS, which at least doesn't > seem to get corrupted in a power failure. Did they make a trade-off I > don't understand, or is it just incompetence - or worse, a deal with > disk manufacturers to sell more disk?
Why is it unnecessary to defragment UFS? _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"