On 26/03/2016 17:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/03/16 17:00, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/03/2016 16:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/03/16 16:40, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/03/2016 15:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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 have more idea than you.


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

Well that's because the likes of me had been using unix for years
before
you and had identified the problems and got them sorted.
I was using unix even before they had introduced paging rather than
swapping.
You do know they are different?

Yes precious, I do.

So you must have been using unix before MSDOS was even invented then?

Hardly gybes with your claim that Unix was worse than MSDOS !

I see you are resulting to lies.

No, that would be you

Still trying i see.


"Just for the other people that don't remember the original unix the
file systems were no better than dos"

Except that at the time, DOS didn't exist.

And just what difference does that make to the statement I made?
Its quite simple to understand.


I have never said MSDOS was better than unix you are just imagining
stuff again.

See above.

Where did I say unix was worse than dos?

Have you had the test yet?


You are in need of therapy.
Have you had the test done yet?