Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200507280921200938.03BF29A7>