From owner-freebsd-questions  Wed Dec  9 01:30:30 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA23745
          for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 01:30:30 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from root.com (root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA23740
          for <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 01:30:28 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from root@root.com)
Received: from root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by root.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA29154;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 01:30:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199812090930.BAA29154@root.com>
To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>
cc: Matt Behrens <matt@zigg.com>, "Mark S. Reichman" <mark@borg.com>,
        freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: UFS defragmenter and/or partition resizer? (Wishful thinking?) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 09 Dec 1998 16:34:53 +1030."
             <19981209163453.H12688@freebie.lemis.com> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 01:30:50 -0800
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

>Well, it would be nice to say that UFS doesn't need defragmentation,
>but it's not quite true.  In practice, though, it's much less of a
>problem than with Microsoft.  And unfortunately we currently don't
>have a defragmenter.

   Actually -current does dynamic defragmentation; that's what the
"doreallocblks" stuff is all about and why it was so important to get
it working. There is a Usenix paper on this by Keith Smith at Havard;
sorry I don't have a URL.

-DG

David Greenman
Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message