Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:08:47 -0400 From: Mike Jeays <mike.jeays@rogers.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: defrag Message-ID: <200808272208.47468.mike.jeays@rogers.com> In-Reply-To: <6C9E353A-3008-4E28-910C-212DBB9F6E28@bsdhost.net> References: <20080827172946.5a1d4103@gom.home> <6C9E353A-3008-4E28-910C-212DBB9F6E28@bsdhost.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On August 27, 2008 09:35:42 pm Fred C wrote: > Maybe it is because FAT filesystem wasn't well designed from the > beginning and defrag was a workaround to solve performances problems. > > -fred- > > On Aug 27, 2008, at 5:29 PM, prad wrote: > > something that has puzzled me for years (but i've never got around to > > asking) is how does *nix get away without regular defrag as with > > windoze. > > > > fsck is equivalent to scandisk, right? > > > > so when you delete files and start getting 'holes', how does *nix deal > > with it? > > > > -- > > In friendship, > > prad > > > > ... with you on your journey > > Towards Freedom > > http://www.towardsfreedom.com (website) > > Information, Inspiration, Imagination - truly a site for soaring I's > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org " > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" That's true about FAT. What I have never understood is why Microsoft didn't fix the problem when they designed NTFS. UFS and EXT2 both existed at that time, and neither needs periodic defragmentation. -- Mike Jeays http://www.jeays.ca
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200808272208.47468.mike.jeays>