Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:20:31 +0300
From:      Victor Semionov <victor@vmpbg.com>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: defragmentation in FreeBSD 4.11
Message-ID:  <200507281120.31564.victor@vmpbg.com>
In-Reply-To: <1122507010.1281.7.camel@chaucer>
References:  <000001c592a1$ef621660$4801a8c0@ws-ew-3.W2KDEMIG> <1122507010.1281.7.camel@chaucer>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

> This is one of the things I find really hard to get Windows users to
> understand.  They just won't believe that a company like Microsoft would
> still be using a filesystem that needs defragmenting if it were possible
> to design one that didn't.  I often wonder why myself - after all, they
> must have put a fair amount of work into NTFS, which at least doesn't
> seem to get corrupted in a power failure.  Did they make a trade-off I
> don't understand, or is it just incompetence - or worse, a deal with
> disk manufacturers to sell more disk?

Why is it unnecessary to defragment UFS?



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200507281120.31564.victor>