Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:37:10 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: defrag Message-ID: <20070307213710.73bc0a5d@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <esbv38$30u3$6@nermal.rz1.convenimus.net> References: <539c60b90703010849x33dd4bbbt8f6ca6aa0c8e83a0@mail.gmail.com> <20070301192109.A24369@chylonia.3miasto.net> <20070302085100.125cf488@localhost> <20070301221738.GA86154@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> <es7tvd$b33$1@sea.gmane.org> <20070302161225.GB90036@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> <esbv38$30u3$6@nermal.rz1.convenimus.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 15:01:12 +0100 (CET) Christian Baer <christian.baer@uni-dortmund.de> wrote: > You do know that you can use 'tunefs -m 0'? This will in fact cause > fragmentation to happen - even on UFS2! UFS2 has methods of avoiding > fragmentation that work quite well but it is not a 'magical' file > system, which only means that every gain comes with a price. In this > case the price is 10-15% of the HD's space. What happens if you use tunefs -m 0, but don't use the released space? Or if you only occasionally use it?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070307213710.73bc0a5d>