Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.adelphia.com!news.adelphia.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:08:09 -0500
Newsgroups: fidonet.linux
From: David_Drummond@f305.n640.z3
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:10:54 -0400
Subject: defrag
Message-ID: 
References: 
Organization: news://fido.jabberwocky.com.au
 456
 205/1
 267/200
Lines: 30
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.48.121.215
 properly
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com fidonet.linux:301

Scott Little -> David Drummond wrote:

 DD>> The files themselves do NOT fragment

 SL> Nonsense.  Have you ever even checked?

Only with the fsck utility. It has only ever reported minimal disk
fragmentation.

 SL> If you're running JAM/squish
 SL> bases (files that grow and shrink a frequently) you'll probably find
 SL> them quite fragmented.  Large disc images tend to fragment too, IME.

Not according to fsck.


 SL> Go download (e2)defrag mentioned in another post and have a look.  Last
 SL> time I used it (I use XFS now), it included the "frag" tool that just
 SL> reports fragmentation without changing anything.  If you don't have good
 SL> backups, I would advise against using poorly/infrequently maintained
 SL> low-level filesystem mangulation widgets...

I'll just leave it as it is thanks.

-- 

regards

David