Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:56:02 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: defrag Message-ID: <es7i5j$7r0$1@sea.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <41224.216.230.84.67.1172785646.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com> References: <539c60b90703010849x33dd4bbbt8f6ca6aa0c8e83a0@mail.gmail.com> <es7gv6$3is$1@sea.gmane.org> <41224.216.230.84.67.1172785646.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig745F8A36D67E9FDE69615EAA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Richard Lynch wrote: > On Thu, March 1, 2007 3:35 pm, Ivan Voras wrote: >> Steve Franks wrote: >>> How come I never hear defrag come up as a topic, and can't find >>> anything related to defrag in the ports tree? Is it really not an >>> issue on UFS? Can someone point me to an explantion if so? >=20 > I've been told that most modern file systems have much better > allocation routines and/or automated defragmentation as needed. >=20 > So that the need to do "defrag" is essentially almost 0 for almost all > users. For what it's worth, this has been Microsoft's official position since NTFS became mainstream. --------------enig745F8A36D67E9FDE69615EAA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFF50vyldnAQVacBcgRAhZEAKC9umcGnvtthfyzKW2oNyCxB0CGjgCfRKkH DKr9Aijao3cji2aRyQuPbdw= =lbao -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig745F8A36D67E9FDE69615EAA--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?es7i5j$7r0$1>