Florian Philipp wrote: > Alan McKinnon schrieb: > [...] >> Reiser tends to self-balance itself out. What is especially >> noteworthy is that none of the general purpose Linux filesystems >> provide a defrag utility. Theodore 'Tso and Hans Reiser are both >> exceptional programmers, if there was a need for such a tool they >> would assuredly have written one. They did not, so there probably isn't. >> > [...] > > Well, as far as I know, ext4 will get an online defrag tool. > > I once experienced performance losses on a reiserfs-volume used for > ccache (tailpacking enabled). > > But otherwise you are right, fragmentation is usually caused by a bad > filesystem (FAT*), a filesystem that is mostly filled (when 99% is > full, the allocator has no choice but scatter any new writes over the > whole volume) or unusual usage patterns (write-delete-write-delete-... > like my ccache issue). > >
I have read the same as what you are saying but I did want to "test" that shake thing. What is funny to me, it was higher AFTER running a defrag tool than it was BEFORE running it. Sort of makes you think. I have said myself that Linux does not generally need to be defraged. I have never seen a Linux file system get anything near as bad as windoze. While I don't run windoze I do have family and friends that do so I know how bad it can be. I have seen a lot of windoze be at 40 and 50%. Looked like about every file on the thing was all over the place like bird shot from a shot gun. Sorry, I'm a southern country boy. lol So I assume 10% or so is not so bad? I didn't think it was but wanted to ask a couple gurus for their opinions. Thanks for the replies. Dale :-) :-)
