Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:11:30 +0300 From: Odhiambo Washington <wash@iconnect.co.ke> To: Daniel Bye <Daniel.Bye@uk.uu.net> Cc: FBSD-Q <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Defragmentation Message-ID: <20001017181130.G89971@poeza.iconnect.co.ke> In-Reply-To: <FB7CAC781DB6D311BEE800805FE6FADA2F4CB4@camexch4.cam.uk.internal>; from "Daniel Bye" on Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 03:21:56PM %2B0100 References: <FB7CAC781DB6D311BEE800805FE6FADA2F4CB4@camexch4.cam.uk.internal>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Daniel Bye <Daniel.Bye@uk.uu.net> [20001017 17:29]: =>Agreed. I have never seen anything above 3%, on a disk that has been =>hammered for months. I would only start to worry if disk usage were above, =>say, 80% AND I saw high fragmentation (above 5-6%). The work involved in =>taking a copy of the FS and rebuuilding disk setups (or manually copying and =>deleting files :o\ ) is too much to contemplate! alouette# df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ad0s2a 74383 31717 36716 46% / /dev/ad0s2e 1686783 1378659 173182 89% /usr /dev/ad0s2f 34687 22929 8984 72% /var /dev/ad0s1 2048000 1738560 309440 85% /win procfs 4 4 0 100% /proc => =>I didn't know about tunefs, though, so thanks for that gem! Have I missed this one about tunefs? Well no. But I am wondering if enabling/disabling of soft updates can be a factor to the % increase. I have it enabled! -Wash -- Odhiambo Washington Inter-Connect Ltd., wash@iconnect.co.ke 5th Flr Furaha Plaza Tel: 254 11 222604 Nkrumah Rd., Fax: 254 11 222636 PO Box 83613 MOMBASA, KENYA. Absence blots people out. We really have no absent friends. -Elizabeth Bowen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001017181130.G89971>