From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 28 11:33:57 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0CE0106566B for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:33:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [IPv6:2001:4070:101:2::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B808FC23 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:33:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m7SBXaYB064607; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:33:36 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) with ESMTP id m7SBXZMa064604; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:33:36 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:33:35 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Fred C In-Reply-To: <6C9E353A-3008-4E28-910C-212DBB9F6E28@bsdhost.net> Message-ID: <20080828132305.O64545@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <20080827172946.5a1d4103@gom.home> <6C9E353A-3008-4E28-910C-212DBB9F6E28@bsdhost.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, prad Subject: Re: defrag X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:33:57 -0000 > Maybe it is because FAT filesystem wasn't well designed from the beginning > and defrag was a workaround to solve performances problems. as everything else microsoft did it wasn't designed but stoled, possibly slightly changed. FAT is similar (mostly the same) as CP/M filesystem. CP/M was single-user and was used on floppies up to 360kB AFAIK, small enough to be able to keep most metadata in memory, even for small hard disks FAT was stupid. The only "innovation" of Micro$oft was subdirs ;) FAT does NOTHING to prevent fragmentation, simply gets the first block availble when needed. NTFS is a theft of OS/2 HPFS. they didn't even bothered to use other partition ID :), but they managed to f..k^H^H^H^Hextend it's functionality, so it's actually even slower than FAT, and too - does nothing to prevent fragmentation. This is normal, as Microsoft make a problems to be able to "fix" it (creating 3 times more others) in new releases, so idiots continue to buy new versions of windoze and new hardware, just to do as simple task as writing a few-paged document or view a webpage