From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 28 02:36:11 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E8A41065671 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:36:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike.jeays@rogers.com) Received: from smtp126.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp126.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.53.31]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DDAA48FC16 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:36:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike.jeays@rogers.com) Received: (qmail 79556 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2008 02:09:30 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=W4PmPRX3tRe+sGx6ifFcRRKQGOHMZQRiTF+Eq5DtqnOOt6Ggj/tYeuf/Ex+TDRNja3o89sP6oLp8YK2dGZ+q0kGRqRwsLeeIfUSESKQ/4cV3yF8j1h0XcEgz2Y6kzIS2TgayTTu+mjL2Wlv81cHXNDLoXFkvW7N0ezBYbLjIYLo= ; Received: from unknown (HELO napoleon.local) (mike.jeays@rogers.com@99.224.75.182 with login) by smtp126.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Aug 2008 02:09:30 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: EghN5MEVM1nwqp9O457rXMofwOE3OPROUZW9jw8nBzH_9NFBL.5CffhcMRugN3Rk2w-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: Mike Jeays To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:08:47 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <20080827172946.5a1d4103@gom.home> <6C9E353A-3008-4E28-910C-212DBB9F6E28@bsdhost.net> In-Reply-To: <6C9E353A-3008-4E28-910C-212DBB9F6E28@bsdhost.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200808272208.47468.mike.jeays@rogers.com> Subject: Re: defrag X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:36:11 -0000 On August 27, 2008 09:35:42 pm Fred C wrote: > Maybe it is because FAT filesystem wasn't well designed from the > beginning and defrag was a workaround to solve performances problems. > > -fred- > > On Aug 27, 2008, at 5:29 PM, prad wrote: > > something that has puzzled me for years (but i've never got around to > > asking) is how does *nix get away without regular defrag as with > > windoze. > > > > fsck is equivalent to scandisk, right? > > > > so when you delete files and start getting 'holes', how does *nix deal > > with it? > > > > -- > > In friendship, > > prad > > > > ... with you on your journey > > Towards Freedom > > http://www.towardsfreedom.com (website) > > Information, Inspiration, Imagination - truly a site for soaring I's > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org " > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" 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. -- Mike Jeays http://www.jeays.ca