Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 05:56:00 +0100 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: defrag Message-ID: <20080828055600.736f3447@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <200808272208.47468.mike.jeays@rogers.com> References: <20080827172946.5a1d4103@gom.home> <6C9E353A-3008-4E28-910C-212DBB9F6E28@bsdhost.net> <200808272208.47468.mike.jeays@rogers.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080828055600.736f3447>