| 1 |
On Friday 28 November 2008 20:24:38 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 2 |
> Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Friday 28 November 2008 13:14:42 Dale wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> If this is a little high, what would be the best way to defrag it? |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > By not defragging it. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > It's not Windows. Windows boxes needs defragging not because |
| 9 |
> > fragmentation is a huge problem in itself, but because windows |
| 10 |
> > filesystems are a steaming mess of cr@p that do little right and most |
| 11 |
> > things wrong. Defrag treats the symptom, not the cause :-) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I don't buy into that argument and never did. Every few months I copy |
| 14 |
> the whole HD to another one and then back to counter fragmentation |
| 15 |
> (ext3) and the system becomes noticeably faster after doing it (speed |
| 16 |
> increase in emerge --sync for example.) Maybe it's not fragmentation |
| 17 |
> but rather related files being more closely together after I do this. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Only a proper analysis of your files will tell you this. It's easy enough to |
| 20 |
check for individual file fragmentation and get stats on that before you do |
| 21 |
the copy-off/copy-back. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives