Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 22:44:30 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] sorting big tables :( Message-ID: <19980520224430.04725@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980520131553.14056W-100000@hub.org>; from The Hermit Hacker on Wed, May 20, 1998 at 01:17:34PM -0400 References: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980520094022.12309C-100000@misery.sdf.com> <Pine.BSF.3.96.980520131553.14056W-100000@hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 20, 1998 at 01:17:34PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > On Wed, 20 May 1998, Tom wrote: > > No, that doesn't happen. The only way to eliminate fragmentation is a > > dump/newfs/restore cycle. UFS does do fragmentation avoidance (which is > > reason UFS filesystems have a 10% reserve). > > Okay, then we have two different understandings of this. My > understanding was that the 10% reserve gave the OS a 'temp area' in which > to move blocks to/from so that it could defrag on the fly... No. What is done is (quite correctly) fragmentation avoidance. Big files are even sometimes fragmented on purpose, to allow small files that are written later to avoid being fragmented. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980520224430.04725>