From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 3 14:01:15 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D8A16A402 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:01:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from news@nermal.rz1.convenimus.net) Received: from mx1.netclusive.de (mx1.netclusive.de [89.110.132.131]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5F213C47E for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:01:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from news@nermal.rz1.convenimus.net) Received: from nermal.rz1.convenimus.net (Fdd20.f.ppp-pool.de [195.4.221.32]) by mx1.netclusive.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E3ADE8041 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2007 15:01:14 +0100 (CET) Received: by nermal.rz1.convenimus.net (Postfix, from userid 8) id E5BF31521B; Sat, 3 Mar 2007 15:01:12 +0100 (CET) To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Path: not-for-mail From: Christian Baer Newsgroups: gmane.os.freebsd.questions Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 15:01:12 +0100 (CET) Organization: Convenimus Projekt Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <539c60b90703010849x33dd4bbbt8f6ca6aa0c8e83a0@mail.gmail.com> <20070301192109.A24369@chylonia.3miasto.net> <20070302085100.125cf488@localhost> <20070301221738.GA86154@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> <20070302161225.GB90036@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: garfield.rz1.convenimus.net X-Trace: nermal.rz1.convenimus.net 1172930472 99267 192.168.100.11 (3 Mar 2007 14:01:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@convenimus.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:01:12 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (FreeBSD) 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: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:01:15 -0000 On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:12:25 -0500 Jerry McAllister wrote: > On the other hand, doing all this either way wouldn't make any difference > in performance for file access in a running system because so-called > fragmentation is not an issue in the UNIX file system - except in > the small possibility that it might make a bit of difference in a > file system filled to capacity, well in to the reserve where non-root > processes are not allowed to write anyway. I don't know just how > close to absolutely full you have to get to see any difference, but it > is beyond what users would normally get to. You do know that you can use 'tunefs -m 0'? This will in fact cause fragmentation to happen - even on UFS2! UFS2 has methods of avoiding fragmentation that work quite well but it is not a 'magical' file system, which only means that every gain comes with a price. In this case the price is 10-15% of the HD's space. BTW. I have used tunefs to utilize all of my space on some drives. However, these drive contain only static information that has to be accessed often and then fast. That is the reason why it is on a drive at all. If you know what you are doing then this option is ok. Otherwise, the use will run into trouble when the drive fills up and the information stored on it is not static. Regards Chris