* Bill Moran:
> To clarify my viewpoint:
> To my knowledge, there is no Unix filesystem that _suffers_ from
> fragmentation. Specifically, all filessytems have some degree of
> fragmentation that occurs, but every Unix filesystem that I am aware of
> has built-in mechanisms to mitigate this and p
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Bill Moran wrote:
I've seen marketing material that claims that modern NTFS doesn't suffer
performance problems from fragmentation.
You're only reading half of the marketing material then. For a balanced
picture, read the stuff generated by the companies that sell defrag
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the case of a performance-critical file like the WAL that's always read
> sequentially it may be to our advantage to defeat this technique and force it
> to be allocated sequentially. I'm not sure whether any filesystems provide any
> option to do so.
"Craig A. James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> More specifically, this problem was solved on UNIX file systems way back in
> the
> 1970's and 1980's. No UNIX file system (including Linux) since then has had
> significant fragmentation problems, unless the file system gets close to 100%
> full. If
Bill Moran wrote:
In response to Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Can anyone else confirm this? I don't know if this is a windows-only
issue, but I don't know of a way to check fragmentation in unix.
I can confirm that it's only a Windows problem. No UNIX filesystem
that I'm aware of s
> In response to Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I was recently running defrag on my windows/parallels VM and noticed
>> a bunch of WAL files that defrag couldn't take care of, presumably
>> because the database was running. What's disturbing to me is that
>> these files all had ~2000 fragm
In response to Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
> >> Can anyone else confirm this? I don't know if this is a windows-only
> >> issue, but I don't know of a way to check fragmentation in unix.
> >
> > I can confirm that it's only a Windows problem. No UNIX filesystem
> > that I'm
Bill Moran wrote:
In response to Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I was recently running defrag on my windows/parallels VM and noticed
a bunch of WAL files that defrag couldn't take care of, presumably
because the database was running. What's disturbing to me is that
these files all had ~200
In response to Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I was recently running defrag on my windows/parallels VM and noticed
> a bunch of WAL files that defrag couldn't take care of, presumably
> because the database was running. What's disturbing to me is that
> these files all had ~2000 fragments.
I was recently running defrag on my windows/parallels VM and noticed
a bunch of WAL files that defrag couldn't take care of, presumably
because the database was running. What's disturbing to me is that
these files all had ~2000 fragments. Now, this was an EnterpriseDB
database which means t
10 matches
Mail list logo
