mike.jeays at rogers.com
Thu Aug 28 02:36:11 UTC 2008
On August 27, 2008 09:35:42 pm Fred C wrote:
> Maybe it is because FAT filesystem wasn't well designed from the
> beginning and defrag was a workaround to solve performances problems.
> On Aug 27, 2008, at 5:29 PM, prad wrote:
> > something that has puzzled me for years (but i've never got around to
> > asking) is how does *nix get away without regular defrag as with
> > windoze.
> > fsck is equivalent to scandisk, right?
> > so when you delete files and start getting 'holes', how does *nix deal
> > with it?
> > --
> > In friendship,
> > prad
> > ... with you on your journey
> > Towards Freedom
> > http://www.towardsfreedom.com (website)
> > Information, Inspiration, Imagination - truly a site for soaring I's
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org "
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
That's true about FAT. What I have never understood is why Microsoft didn't
fix the problem when they designed NTFS. UFS and EXT2 both existed at that
time, and neither needs periodic defragmentation.
More information about the freebsd-questions