Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:21:26 +0100 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: defrag Message-ID: <20080828142126.7ffa3b1d@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <20080828133712.H64545@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <20080828080935.9D7044FC901@xroff.net> <20080828133712.H64545@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:13:40 +0200 > Eduardo Morras <emorras@xroff.net> wrote: > > > 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. How did you measure it? AFAIK the percentage fragmentation figures given by windows tools and fsck, aren't measured on the same basis. On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:41:22 +0200 (CEST) Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > it's just like FAT, because nothing is done to prevent fragmentation. > > if NTFS needs to allocate block, it simply get first free. > > consider writing to 3 files, one block at a time to each. > > you will get block arranged like this (where 1 is file 1's data,2 is > data from file 2 and 3 from file 3): > > 123123123123123123123123213213 This is just untrue. I don't much like Microsoft, but I don't think there's much to be gained by out-fudding them.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080828142126.7ffa3b1d>