Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:24:04 +1100 From: Norberto Meijome <freebsd@meijome.net> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: defrag Message-ID: <20070302122404.398da65d@localhost> In-Reply-To: <es7i5j$7r0$1@sea.gmane.org> References: <539c60b90703010849x33dd4bbbt8f6ca6aa0c8e83a0@mail.gmail.com> <es7gv6$3is$1@sea.gmane.org> <41224.216.230.84.67.1172785646.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com> <es7i5j$7r0$1@sea.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:56:02 +0100
Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> wrote:
> > So that the need to do "defrag" is essentially almost 0 for almost all
> > users.
>
> For what it's worth, this has been Microsoft's official position since
> NTFS became mainstream.
Meaning that NTFS is cured of this ??
I must be using the Fat-16 version of NTFS because i haven't seen 1 Win32 box
where fragmentation isnt an issue... It may be have a smaller impact on
performance than in the old days (faster buses / disks / CPU ? ) , but it is
definitely still there , and it definitely affects performance.
_________________________
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
...using the internet as it was originally intended... for the further research
of pornography and pipebombs.
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070302122404.398da65d>