| 1 |
On Friday 28 November 2008 17:08:03 Stroller wrote: |
| 2 |
> I understood that ReiserFS's trees could become out-of-balance, |
| 3 |
> resulting in performance loss, and that the way to deal with this was |
| 4 |
> to tar the contents of the drive to another file-system and then untar |
| 5 |
> them back. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
That's what I tell people to do. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
My purely anecdotal evidence: I observe that to get a Windows disk to reliably |
| 10 |
defrag, it should be taken off-line (otherwise it constantly restarts the |
| 11 |
process). A huge NTFS disk takes ages to defrag, the time involved seems |
| 12 |
about the same order as simply move the files off, copy them back. One day I |
| 13 |
may even test this with a stop watch :-) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
As someone else said elsewhere, it's the user's problem to do the right thing |
| 16 |
with sparse files, symlinks and to remember which files are actually hard |
| 17 |
links. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives