Re: non-contiguous vs Fragmentation
Quoting Joe Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > during boot up, I see my hard drive is 9.7 % non - contiguous. I'm not sure > what this means. > What then is the difference between non-contiguous and fragmentation? Is > one worse than the other? How can my hard drive be 9.7 % non-contiguous if > the ext2 filesystem is supposed to be anti-fragmenting? You can't maintain a perfectly unfragmented filesystem if files are going to be modifiable are writing them. If you have to extend a file that has another file written after it, then you've generated a non-contiguous extent. Even if users think they're smoothly writing two files that "ought" to be contiguous, the time-sharing between processes will scupper their efforts. > Is there a way to make my hard drive contiguous again? I thought that there > were no linux defragmenters. There are such beasts, but they're probably rarely used as ext2 works well. While all hell breaks loose if you actually run out of disk space in, say, var or tmp, I've run at over 95% full disk space with unpacked kernel sources and no effect on subsequent non-contig figures.. 9.7% non-contig is nothing to worry about. Cheers, -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151 Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
Re: non-contiguous vs Fragmentation
Also, if you happen to have a file larger than approx. 8MB (at least with 2.0-compatible fs) it WILL be fragmented, because the inode tables and block groups are laid out on the fs at 8MB intervals. Not sure what it is on a fs made for the 2.2 kernel options. On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > "Joe Smith" wrote: > > > I know Linux uses the ext2 filesystem which is supposed to be > > anti-fragmenting. > > It fragments when it has to (as opposed to `always' like > windows). > > > during boot up, I see my hard drive is 9.7 % non - contiguous. I'm not > > sure > > what this means. > > I assume that 9.7% of the file space is fragmented. > > > What then is the difference between non-contiguous and fragmentation? > > Don't know. > >How can my hard drive be 9.7 % non-contiguous if > > the ext2 filesystem is supposed to be anti-fragmenting? > > It's not _anti_ -fragmenting. If your disk is getting full, it > may start to get fragmented. > > Someone have the URL to the good/bad secretaries analogy? > > > Is there a way to make my hard drive contiguous again? I thought that > > there > > were no linux defragmenters. > > See the defrag package in section admin (I've never used it). > -- > Peter Galbraith, research scientist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada > P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546 > 6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/ > > > -- > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null >
Re: non-contiguous vs Fragmentation
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 11:00:56AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > "Joe Smith" wrote: ... > > What then is the difference between non-contiguous and fragmentation? ... "Non-contiguous" simply describes what the term "fragmentation" really entails when you look at how a file is written onto a drive. Data on a drive is written into predefined blocks (predefined by the OS's file system) called clusters. If a file is written into clusters all adjacent to one another (contiguous) then it is not fragmented... > >How can my hard drive be 9.7 % non-contiguous if > > the ext2 filesystem is supposed to be anti-fragmenting? > > It's not _anti_ -fragmenting. If your disk is getting full, it > may start to get fragmented. (I was going to say "@#$%^! happens" but thought better of it... :) AFAIK that isn't a bad number. Of course, one is left without knowing what constitutes bad, too. The figure has much to do with average file sizes, percent use (space and clusters), and how often you change those files... Kenward (Sorry for using your post, Peter, but the original got chopped earlier in my zeal to wade through my email...) -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please! --
Re: non-contiguous vs Fragmentation
"Joe Smith" wrote: > I know Linux uses the ext2 filesystem which is supposed to be > anti-fragmenting. It fragments when it has to (as opposed to `always' like windows). > during boot up, I see my hard drive is 9.7 % non - contiguous. I'm not sure > what this means. I assume that 9.7% of the file space is fragmented. > What then is the difference between non-contiguous and fragmentation? Don't know. >How can my hard drive be 9.7 % non-contiguous if > the ext2 filesystem is supposed to be anti-fragmenting? It's not _anti_ -fragmenting. If your disk is getting full, it may start to get fragmented. Someone have the URL to the good/bad secretaries analogy? > Is there a way to make my hard drive contiguous again? I thought that there > were no linux defragmenters. See the defrag package in section admin (I've never used it). -- Peter Galbraith, research scientist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546 6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/
non-contiguous vs Fragmentation
Hello everyone, This is a question I've had for a while. I know Linux uses the ext2 filesystem which is supposed to be anti-fragmenting. Once in a while, when I boot up, I get a message saying I have reached maximal mount count and I have to sit and wait a few minutes before I can continue with the boot up. I have recently noticed that, during boot up, I see my hard drive is 9.7 % non - contiguous. I'm not sure what this means. According to webopedia.com: fragmentation - Refers to the condition of a disk in which files are divided into pieces scattered around the disk. Fragmentation occurs naturally when you use a disk frequently, creating, deleting, and modifying files. At some point, the operating system needs to store parts of a file in noncontiguous clusters. This is entirely invisible to users, but it can slow down the speed at which data is accessed because the disk drive must search through different parts of the disk to put together a single file. What then is the difference between non-contiguous and fragmentation? Is one worse than the other? How can my hard drive be 9.7 % non-contiguous if the ext2 filesystem is supposed to be anti-fragmenting? Is there a way to make my hard drive contiguous again? I thought that there were no linux defragmenters. Thank you for reading this email, I know it's really long. Well, I'd like to hear your responses. Andrew Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
