Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:18:14 +0400 From: Sergey Zaharchenko <doublef@tele-kom.ru> To: Jan Muenther <jan.muenther@nruns.com> Cc: Edd <list@arameus.net> Subject: Re: [FreeBSD] Silly Question Message-ID: <20040621101813.GA6399@Shark.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20040621081202.GA1538@localghost.muenther.de> References: <001701c4575d$edb47c20$0200a8c0@LLAPTOP> <200406210740.i5L7ekg17714@server1.web-mania.com> <20040621081202.GA1538@localghost.muenther.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 10:12:02AM +0200, Jan Muenther probably wrote: > > fsck is what your looking for. > >=20 > > To find out more type: > > man fsck >=20 > Hm, not really. UFS doesn't fragment as hard as FAT or NTFS do, so there'= s no > need to actively defragment it. Just a small correction: fsck has nothing to do with fragmentation (if only reporting it), it does integrity checking. > It's just a tad bit more clever with block allocation than those other fi= le- > systems.=20 > You don't need to run fsck manually, on a regular basis. You really don't need to do that, but it's because the ffs filesystem is more clever at being consistent than FAT, and not because it's cleverer at allocating blocks (though it certainly is). HTH, --=20 DoubleF But soft you, the fair Ophelia: Ope not thy ponderous and marble jaws, But get thee to a nunnery -- go! -- Mark "The Bard" Twain --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFA1rXlwo7hT/9lVdwRAsJ1AJ94CZJSDmLWWcDo1hxqYCY6hQYR8QCfaQMq t0Aq26PWcli7jU6WfDdkKMw= =FnV5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040621101813.GA6399>