| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 14 February 2008, Uwe Thiem wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Yes, everything will be defragmented. In addition, it will leave gaps |
| 5 |
>> between files. So if a file lateron grows it will not immediately |
| 6 |
>> fragment. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Which will cause a stupid script to report fragmentation if the author |
| 10 |
> does not understand file system structure... |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Yea, I have always read that Linux file systems are a lot better at |
| 15 |
taking care of fragmentation. Considering how old this install is and |
| 16 |
how much has been installed/removed/upgraded over the past several |
| 17 |
years, I think it is not to bad really. Even 10% with the number of |
| 18 |
files I have is better than fat or NTFS. My bro has XP with NTFS and it |
| 19 |
gets downright awful. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
For the record, I have over 502,000 files and over 49,000 directories on |
| 22 |
this system. That's less than 20,000 files that are fragmented. It's |
| 23 |
not just the OS but documents, little movies and a LOT of pictures. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Maybe I just need a bigger hard drive. O_O I have two 80GB drives and |
| 26 |
a single 40GB drive. Waiting on DSL. he he he he he |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I also attached a copy of the program I used. I think I got it off the |
| 29 |
forums. Maybe some guru can improve it a little. ;-) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Dale |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
:-) :-) |
Archives