From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 28 08:26:40 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 E29AE1065677 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:26:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from emorras@xroff.net) Received: from xroff.net (xroff.net [200.46.208.231]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08358FC18 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:26:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from emorras@xroff.net) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by xroff.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02934FC909 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:09:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from xroff.net ([200.46.208.231]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 43060-03 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 05:09:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from inv-008.xroff.net (unknown [83.175.204.210]) by xroff.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9D7044FC901 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:09:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:13:40 +0200 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Eduardo Morras Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: <20080828080935.9D7044FC901@xroff.net> 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 08:26:41 -0000 At 06:56 28/08/2008, you wrote: >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. 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!!