| 1 |
Joshua Murphy wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On Friday 28 November 2008 13:14:42 Dale wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> If this is a little high, what would be the best way to defrag it? |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>> By not defragging it. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> It's not Windows. Windows boxes needs defragging not because fragmentation is |
| 11 |
>> a huge problem in itself, but because windows filesystems are a steaming mess |
| 12 |
>> of cr@p that do little right and most things wrong. Defrag treats the |
| 13 |
>> symptom, not the cause :-) |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Reiser tends to self-balance itself out. What is especially noteworthy is that |
| 16 |
>> none of the general purpose Linux filesystems provide a defrag utility. |
| 17 |
>> Theodore 'Tso and Hans Reiser are both exceptional programmers, if there was |
| 18 |
>> a need for such a tool they would assuredly have written one. They did not, |
| 19 |
>> so there probably isn't. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> Any Linux defrag tool you encounter will have been written by a third party |
| 22 |
>> separate from the developers. It will move blocks around and update |
| 23 |
>> superblocks, the drive will have to be unmounted for that to work and a |
| 24 |
>> slight misunderstanding of how to do it will ruin data. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> Are you willing to take the very real risk of data corruption? |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>>> Is |
| 30 |
>>> there a best way? I do have a second hard drive that I back up too. |
| 31 |
>>> Both Drives are 80Gbs and I do have a set of DVD back ups as well. I |
| 32 |
>>> can update those pretty quick. |
| 33 |
>>> |
| 34 |
>> |
| 35 |
>> -- |
| 36 |
>> alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
>> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> While not trying to incite flames here... xfs isn't general purpose? |
| 42 |
> xfs_fsr defrags xfs partitions while they're mounted and is designed |
| 43 |
> to be used from cron (it's in xfsdump, not xfsprogs). File |
| 44 |
> fragmentation, while a fact of life on any filesystem that sees any |
| 45 |
> real use, does slow access times, as the drive head has to jump from |
| 46 |
> one place to another, so a lot of fragmentation is a bad thing... but |
| 47 |
> as you say, we're not dealing with FAT based FS's here, so severe |
| 48 |
> fragmentation only shows itself on very full filesystems. I very |
| 49 |
> rarely see over 80% usage of my filesystems and have never |
| 50 |
> consistently checked fragmentation levels, though, so I can't say |
| 51 |
> whether xfs's being the exception on having a tool for the job means |
| 52 |
> it particularly needed one... |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Given my experience with XFS, I won't be switching anytime soon. I used |
| 57 |
that once on a in-laws system. After each crash, power failure, I had |
| 58 |
to reinstall. Let's just say it left a bad taste in my mouth. ;-) I'm |
| 59 |
not saying it is a bad file system for someone but certainly not for me. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
You are right tho, every file system has some fragmentation. It just |
| 62 |
can't be otherwise. I guess I could always make my back ups, then redo |
| 63 |
my partitions, and copy them back. I have done that once before. |
| 64 |
Worked very well then but not real sure about how udev would like that. |
| 65 |
I would think it would work OK but call me chicken. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Dale |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
:-) :-) |
Archives