Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:24:11 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: defrag Message-ID: <20080829122333.L2724@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20080829050817.10c9f38e@gumby.homeunix.com.> References: <20080828080935.9D7044FC901@xroff.net> <20080828133712.H64545@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20080828142126.7ffa3b1d@gumby.homeunix.com.> <20080829024229.D68158@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20080829050817.10c9f38e@gumby.homeunix.com.>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> at FAT. > >> possibly untrue in Win NT, > > From what I've read, it's a journalling filesytem based on a i mean FAT partition under NT. > 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. still it's something wrong if it needs the defragmenter at all... UFS do not.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080829122333.L2724>