On 26/03/16 13:01, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/03/2016 09:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/03/16 22:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 24/03/2016 22:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Oh the joys of Linux, and no de fragging ever unless the disk is 100%
full

I've heard this said, and I never can work out how.

If I put 5000 files on my disk, and delete every alternate one, how
can it not be fragmented?

OS X defrags in the background for files up to 10MB in size, AFAIK. But
I've never known it to be an issue anyway and it's never discussed on
Mac NGs because it isn't an issue.


All *nix derived kernels have some sort of 'auto-defrag' going on, but
the key point is that by using the disk layout more intelligently, there
is less need for it as well.

Once again the legacy of Windows - a single user system with its roots
back in floppy disks - and Unix - a multi-user system designed to work
with a very busy disk from the outset - show up.


What a load of cr@p!!

If unix was designed so well why doesn't it still use the original file
systems?

After all you are comparing the original windows file systems with unix
ones!

But then you always compare old windows stuff with unix as you have no
idea about windows!


Just for the other people that don't remember the original unix the file
systems were no better than dos and got fragmented in multiple ways and
the only way to defrag them was to take a tape image and reformat and
reload the image.
This needed to be done frequently or the system would slow to a crawl
(about 30% of normal).

.... But then you always compare old unix stuff with windows as you have no
idea about unix!

I cant remember anything as bad on Unix as FAT since I first touched a
Unix system in about 1984

In fact Unix has NEVER had such a bad files system as FAT. Not from the
word go.

And they have always been at least ten years ahead of MSDOS/Windows.



--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx