Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:08:17 +0100 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: defrag Message-ID: <20080829050817.10c9f38e@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <20080829024229.D68158@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <20080828080935.9D7044FC901@xroff.net> <20080828133712.H64545@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20080828142126.7ffa3b1d@gumby.homeunix.com.> <20080829024229.D68158@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:43:40 +0200 (CEST) Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > >> you will get block arranged like this (where 1 is file 1's data,2 > >> is data from file 2 and 3 from file 3): > >> > >> 123123123123123123123123213213 > > > > This is just untrue. I don't much like Microsoft, but I don't think >=20 > i AM sure it is like that under DOS up to 6.2 (where i tested it), > and almost sure with windoze 95&98. Well, you can't really say "it's just like FAT" if you've only looked at FAT. > possibly untrue in Win NT,=20 =46rom what I've read, it's a journalling filesytem based on a B+ tree with small files stored directly in the tree and larger files in variable-length extents. It sounds superficially similar to several UNIX filesystems.=20 I see that ext4 the successor to ext3, and which also has extent support, has a defragmenter. And it appears to give significant increases in read speeds.=20 http://ols.108.redhat.com/2007/Reprints/sato-Reprint.pdf
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080829050817.10c9f38e>