jekillen at prodigy.net
Fri Mar 2 01:06:31 UTC 2007
On Mar 1, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Lowell Gilbert wrote:
>> If you know the standard computer science terminology, it can be
>> described quite tersely. UFS fragmentation is a way of avoiding
>> internal fragmentation from wasting too much space. MS-DOS-FS
>> fragmentation is an example of external fragmentation in the storage
>> space. They don't really have anything to do with each other.
> It looks like I actually AM arguing about semantics here:
> "UFS fragmentation" refers to dividing blocks (e.g. 16KB in size) into
> block fragments (e.g. 2KB in size) that can be allocated separately in
> special circumstances (which all boil down to: at the end of files).
> This is done to lessen the effect of internal fragmentation.
> "Fragmentation" without "UFS" prefix, as mostly used today (and which
> believe it's how the original poster understands it) refers to dividing
> files into non-continuous regions, i.e. external fragmentation.
> Correct so far?
> "% fragmentation" message from fsck cannot refer to internal
> fragmentation as the numbers don't add up, so it almost certainly
> to external fragmentation.
This discussion has been about UFS vs MS file system. But I have been
using Macs and have run file system utilities, Norton, and watched it
a Mac disc. I am just curious as to how the HFS and HFS+ file systems
into this picture. Particularly since OSX is essentially a Unix 'like'
but still uses HFS+
Just for some perspective and idle curiosity.
More information about the freebsd-questions