Hi,
I've only been running Linux for a year and only 9 months in a real
work situation. However I ran Unix ATT Sys V for about 10 years
and never had any need to defragment the disk. There was never
any noticable change in preformance or problems. I assume Linux
is the same.
Linda Hanigan
----- Original Message -----
From: Mikkel L. Ellertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: defragment utility
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, CH wrote:
>
> > IF that's true then on the boot to linux showing drives such as _._%
> > non-contiguous keeps increasing. Isn't non-contiguous mean
fragmentation?
> > If so, then how is it just MS sickness?
> >
> > CH
> >
> If I understand it right, the way Linux writes files keeps the files
> contiguous, but not the file system - at least untill the disk is almost
> full. Between the way Linux uses memory for disk buffers, and the way it
> writes files, you normally don't see any performance loss from a
> non-contiguous drive. Now, MS will fragment files if there are any open
> spaces in the drive, even if there is a contiguous space on the drive
> farther out. I don't know if this is true for the NT file system, but
> that is the way the FAT file system works.
>
> Mikkel
> --
> Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
> for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
> as the Subject.
>
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
