Florian Philipp wrote: > Dale schrieb: > >> 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 > > I'm wondering, why is Windows that bad in this regard? Of course, FAT* > is bad, but what's about NTFS? It is at least as modern as most Linux > FS and has some nice features. Surely MS should be capable of > implementing the same allocation algorithms we use. Or is NTFS really > not bad in this regard and it's all just that people mix experiences > with FAT* with NTFS?
My brother has windoze XP and NTFS. It gets very fragmented. He defrags that thing pretty regular. I would think that NTFS may be better than *FAT but it doesn't seem to be much. > >> >> 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. >> > > As far as I know, Windows and e2fsck calculate fragmentation > differently (don't know about this tool for reiser you mentioned). So > you can not expect these values to be comparable. AFAIK 10% reported > by e2fsck are worse than 10% reported by Windows. > > I have to say, my system is pretty snappy. I have a AMD 2500+ with 2Gbs of ram. My drives are the bottle neck but I can't say that it is because of it being fragmented. It is a ATA133 system but one drive runs ATA100 if I recall correctly. May be that one drive is older than the other. Frag check is a script that someone wrote. It is not part of reiserfs tools or anything. I'm not even sure how accurate it is with reiserfs or if the file system matters. Dale :-) :-)
