Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 17:06:09 -0800 From: jekillen <jekillen@prodigy.net> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: defrag Message-ID: <2dac75d59286fc9c0481d6dc7ca29e16@prodigy.net> In-Reply-To: <es7ln0$jff$1@sea.gmane.org> References: <539c60b90703010849x33dd4bbbt8f6ca6aa0c8e83a0@mail.gmail.com> <es7gv6$3is$1@sea.gmane.org> <20070301165055.638b0a06.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <es7im6$9tu$1@sea.gmane.org> <44r6s8y4o5.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <es7ln0$jff$1@sea.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 1, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Ivan Voras wrote: > Lowell Gilbert wrote: > >> If you know the standard computer science terminology, it can be >> described quite tersely. UFS fragmentation is a way of avoiding >> internal fragmentation from wasting too much space. MS-DOS-FS >> fragmentation is an example of external fragmentation in the storage >> space. They don't really have anything to do with each other. > > It looks like I actually AM arguing about semantics here: > > "UFS fragmentation" refers to dividing blocks (e.g. 16KB in size) into > block fragments (e.g. 2KB in size) that can be allocated separately in > special circumstances (which all boil down to: at the end of files). > This is done to lessen the effect of internal fragmentation. > > "Fragmentation" without "UFS" prefix, as mostly used today (and which > I > believe it's how the original poster understands it) refers to dividing > files into non-continuous regions, i.e. external fragmentation. > > Correct so far? > > "% fragmentation" message from fsck cannot refer to internal > fragmentation as the numbers don't add up, so it almost certainly > refers > to external fragmentation. > This discussion has been about UFS vs MS file system. But I have been using Macs and have run file system utilities, Norton, and watched it defrag a Mac disc. I am just curious as to how the HFS and HFS+ file systems fit into this picture. Particularly since OSX is essentially a Unix 'like' system but still uses HFS+ Just for some perspective and idle curiosity. Thanks Jeff K
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2dac75d59286fc9c0481d6dc7ca29e16>