Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:20:31 +0300 From: Victor Semionov <victor@vmpbg.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: defragmentation in FreeBSD 4.11 Message-ID: <200507281120.31564.victor@vmpbg.com> In-Reply-To: <1122507010.1281.7.camel@chaucer> References: <000001c592a1$ef621660$4801a8c0@ws-ew-3.W2KDEMIG> <1122507010.1281.7.camel@chaucer>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> This is one of the things I find really hard to get Windows users to > understand. They just won't believe that a company like Microsoft would > still be using a filesystem that needs defragmenting if it were possible > to design one that didn't. I often wonder why myself - after all, they > must have put a fair amount of work into NTFS, which at least doesn't > seem to get corrupted in a power failure. Did they make a trade-off I > don't understand, or is it just incompetence - or worse, a deal with > disk manufacturers to sell more disk? Why is it unnecessary to defragment UFS?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200507281120.31564.victor>