John Rye wrote:
>
> DataChannel wrote:
> >
> > If defrag finds any errors during the scandisk-like mode of it (first 5%) it
> > wouldn't let me continue. I ran scandisk before running defrag and it
> > didn't do anything to my linux partition because I rebooted to linux to make
> > sure it still works and it worked after scandisk was run and there were no
> > errors in scandisk.
> >
> > Defrag is supposed to only defragment files within the partition, why does
> > it go as far as wiping my linux partition and screwing up the partition
> > table to do it?
> >
> > Even if I disable its check for errors and program optimizer, it ends up
> > destroying the linux partition when run.
> >
> > What does defrag need to do to other partitions to get its job done on the
> > windows partition anyways and WHY?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ed Tharp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 8:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: [newbie] Windows 98 Defrag and Linux Partitions
> >
> > > maybe the defrag is running scandisk, and auto settings are set to repair
> > > the boot sector?
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Larry Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 8:54 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [newbie] Windows 98 Defrag and Linux Partitions
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Why is it that everytime I defrag in windows (in safe mode) that it
> > > results
> > > > > in screwing up my linux partition and making my computer unbootable
> > > because
> > > > > grub can't read the linux partition?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe you're setting your defrag tool to do an entire disk rather than
> > > > just the Windows partition. OTher than that, I have no idea
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
> Might I suggest --- why 'defrag'?? I stopped using that just before Adam
> got his first pair of short pants cause it was inconsistant with some
> hard disks - can't rememeber which ones now.
>
> I think you'd find that the norton/symantec utilities rather more
> reliable and configurable to your linux situation. Certainly gives
> me no problems.
>
> Cheers
>
> Addendum - further along the thread.....
>
> I'm sure that it's NOT 'scandisk' which does it in this case, I'm very
> much more inclined to suspect 'defrag' simply because of my past
> experience.
>
> Other thing about defragging applications in the M$ enviroment is,
> that these apps MUST NOT BE INTERRUPTED while running and this includes
> even moving the mouse!!! That will cause them to halt and restart!!
>
> Defrag in in particular is bad for this, as there is no guarantee that
> it with retain the memory it had before the screen was re-written.
>
> My advise to all defraggers regardless of the application - start it -
> leave it to run (NO SCREENSAVERS) and walk (or even run) away, for
> several hours!
>
> Much more reliable then in as much as the fat filesystems are reliable.
>
> Second Cheer
>
> --
> ICQ# 89345394 Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected"
> (The UNIX Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972.)
Windows 98's defrag is insane. I mean, you have to begin a defrag at
11:00pm,
and run it all night! Very inefficient.
--
Roman
Registered Linux User #179293
