From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 29 04:24:55 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 17F60106566B for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:24:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06+ZI=5618614d@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 D8EDF8FC14 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:24:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06+ZI=5618614d@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 9427A163DF7 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:08:22 -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 F415523E402 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:08:17 +0100 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20080829050817.10c9f38e@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <20080829024229.D68158@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <20080828080935.9D7044FC901@xroff.net> <20080828133712.H64545@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20080828142126.7ffa3b1d@gumby.homeunix.com.> <20080829024229.D68158@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> 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: quoted-printable 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: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:24:55 -0000 On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:43:40 +0200 (CEST) Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> 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 >=20 > i AM sure it is like that under DOS up to 6.2 (where i tested it), > and almost sure with windoze 95&98. Well, you can't really say "it's just like FAT" if you've only looked at FAT. > possibly untrue in Win NT,=20 =46rom what I've read, it's a journalling filesytem based on a B+ tree with small files stored directly in the tree and larger files in variable-length extents. It sounds superficially similar to several UNIX filesystems.=20 I see that ext4 the successor to ext3, and which also has extent support, has a defragmenter. And it appears to give significant increases in read speeds.=20 http://ols.108.redhat.com/2007/Reprints/sato-Reprint.pdf