From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 29 10:24:16 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 520401065679 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:24:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [IPv6:2001:4070:101:2::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41EC38FC2F for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:24:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m7TAOCGR002751; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:24:12 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) with ESMTP id m7TAOBFp002748; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:24:12 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:24:11 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: RW In-Reply-To: <20080829050817.10c9f38e@gumby.homeunix.com.> Message-ID: <20080829122333.L2724@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> <20080829050817.10c9f38e@gumby.homeunix.com.> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 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 10:24:16 -0000 > 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.