Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:21:20 -0400 From: "MikeM" <the.lists@mgm51.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: defragmentation in FreeBSD 4.11 Message-ID: <200507280921200938.03BF29A7@sentry.24cl.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
On 7/27/2005 at 7:30 PM Mike Jeays wrote: |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? ============= When NTFS was new, Microsoft was saying that it did not need to be defragmented, ever. I attended two technical sessions at conferences where Microsoft actually stated that.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200507280921200938.03BF29A7>