Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 8 Sep 1997 16:15:09 -0500 (CDT)
From:      "M. L. Dodson" <bdodson@beowulf.utmb.edu>
To:        026809r@dragon.acadiau.ca (Michael Richards)
Cc:        poker2@northernnet.com (Shawn Leas), freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Fragmentation (How much is too much?)
Message-ID:  <199709082115.QAA10608@beowulf.utmb.edu>
In-Reply-To: <199709082013.RAA14047@dragon.acadiau.ca>
References:  <3.0.3.16.19970908085535.33e786e8@206.24.45.1> <199709082013.RAA14047@dragon.acadiau.ca>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Richards writes:
 > > Just wondering, guys...  I am about 1.0% fragged, and I
 > > was wondering at what point a dump/restore is in order?
 > > Or is there possibly a better way?
 > 
 > Is there no such thing as a defragmentation program for UFS?
 > Sorta like norton speed disk?
 > 
 > -Mike

The term "fragmentation" with reference to the Berkeley ffs has an
entirely different meaning than "fragmentation" with reference to the
DOS FAT system.  See the discussion in 
/usr/share/doc/smm/05.fastfs/paper.ascii.gz

The design of ffs reduces the kind of fragmentation seen in FAT
systems, so the need for a defragger is essentially eliminated.  If 
you really accumulate fragmentation (in the DOS sense), then a
dump/restore is in order.  I have never found a time when this was
necessary (in 6 years of administering Unix boxes using ffs or its
derivatives).
-- 
M. L. Dodson                                bdodson@scms.utmb.edu
409-772-2178                                FAX: 409-772-1790



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709082115.QAA10608>