1 |
Dale schrieb: |
2 |
|
3 |
> I have said myself that Linux does not generally need to be defraged. I |
4 |
> have never seen a Linux file system get anything near as bad as |
5 |
> windoze. While I don't run windoze I do have family and friends that do |
6 |
> so I know how bad it can be. I have seen a lot of windoze be at 40 and |
7 |
> 50%. Looked like about every file on the thing was all over the place |
8 |
> like bird shot from a shot gun. Sorry, I'm a southern country boy. lol |
9 |
|
10 |
I'm wondering, why is Windows that bad in this regard? Of course, FAT* |
11 |
is bad, but what's about NTFS? It is at least as modern as most Linux FS |
12 |
and has some nice features. Surely MS should be capable of implementing |
13 |
the same allocation algorithms we use. Or is NTFS really not bad in this |
14 |
regard and it's all just that people mix experiences with FAT* with NTFS? |
15 |
|
16 |
> |
17 |
> So I assume 10% or so is not so bad? I didn't think it was but wanted |
18 |
> to ask a couple gurus for their opinions. |
19 |
> |
20 |
|
21 |
As far as I know, Windows and e2fsck calculate fragmentation differently |
22 |
(don't know about this tool for reiser you mentioned). So you can not |
23 |
expect these values to be comparable. AFAIK 10% reported by e2fsck are |
24 |
worse than 10% reported by Windows. |