From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 28 05:12:54 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 B0A2F1065699 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 05:12:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06+ZH=f1c166d5@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from fallback-in1.mxes.net (fallback-out1.mxes.net [216.86.168.190]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864DC8FC18 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 05:12:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06+ZH=f1c166d5@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from mxout-03.mxes.net (mxout-03.mxes.net [216.86.168.178]) by fallback-in1.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BA7163F82 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:56:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com. (unknown [87.81.140.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 018CA23E402 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:56:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 05:56:00 +0100 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 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> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.11; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 05:12:54 -0000 On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:08:47 -0400 Mike Jeays 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.