Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:13:40 +0200 From: Eduardo Morras <emorras@xroff.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: defrag Message-ID: <20080828080935.9D7044FC901@xroff.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 06:56 28/08/2008, you wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:08:47 -0400
>Mike Jeays <mike.jeays@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
> > That's true about FAT. What I have never understood is why Microsoft
> > didn't fix the problem when they designed NTFS. UFS and EXT2 both
> > existed at that time, and neither needs periodic defragmentation.
>
>I think they probably did, NTFS took a lot from UNIX filesystems, and
>at the time it was released they said that NTFS didn't need any
>defragmentation at all.
No, if you check a NTFS disk after some work, it's heavily
fragmented. As you fill it and work with it, it becomes more and more
fragmented.
>I suspect that it's mostly a matter of attitude. Windows users have an
>irrational obsessive-compulsive attitude to fragmentation, so they
>end-up with good reliable defragmenters, and so less reason not to use
>them. We don't really care, so we end-up with no, or poor,
>defragmenters, which reinforces our don't care attitude.
The best way to defragment a NTFS drive is make a backup to other
device, format the original and recover the backup. It take less time
and device don't suffer. I do it monthly with the data disks and
performance grows espectacularly (near x4 on sustained file read).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Este documento muestra mis ideas. Son originales mias.
Queda prohibido pensar lo mismo que yo sin pago previo.
Si estas de acuerdo conmigo PAGAME!!!! Cuidado con mi abogado MUERDE!!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080828080935.9D7044FC901>