From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul 28 11:39:18 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7161616A41F
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:39:18 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from victor@vmpbg.com)
Received: from 123bg.com (123bg.com [193.68.120.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E025243D5E
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:39:07 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from victor@vmpbg.com)
Received: (qmail 12306 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2005 08:20:20 -0000
Received: from host-201.teranet.evro.net (HELO neon.devian.bg) (83.148.125.201)
	by 0 with SMTP; 28 Jul 2005 08:20:20 -0000
From: Victor Semionov <victor@vmpbg.com>
Organization: Devian
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:20:31 +0300
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1
References: <000001c592a1$ef621660$4801a8c0@ws-ew-3.W2KDEMIG>
	<1122507010.1281.7.camel@chaucer>
In-Reply-To: <1122507010.1281.7.camel@chaucer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="windows-1251"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200507281120.31564.victor@vmpbg.com>
Subject: Re: defragmentation in FreeBSD 4.11
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:39:18 -0000


> 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?