Disk defragmenter in Linux

Mike McCarty mike.mccarty at sbcglobal.net
Fri Dec 23 20:18:17 UTC 2005

Tim wrote:
> Tim:
>>>But such (static) data doesn't get fragmented, it stays as it was
>>>original written.  It's changing files that become fragmented, and
>>>newly created ones
> Mike McCarty:
>>Er? Perhaps what Tony wrote was in error, but his understanding is
>>the same as mine. The ext3 tends to fragment files as it writes them.
> It would only be fragmenting the files that it writes to, not the ones
> already on the disk.  Sure, a fragmented word processor document might
> take a bit longer to open (though it'd have to be a large file for you
> to notice), but the word processor is going to take just as long to
> start up as it ever did.  Likewise with all the other unmodified files
> on the drive (most of the OS and applications).  Writing a fragmented
> file doesn't shuffle everything else around.

I wasn't saying that. But writing to the files *during installation*
might result in fragmentation.

> Things like large mail spool files have been about the only thing that
> strike me as a fragmentation issue.  Most other files are rather small.


>>And what you wrote doesn't address the directories, which get appended
>>to, and presumably fragmented, at the time they are creat
> I was under the impression that the directory structure was recorded in
> manner that's different from how the files are stored.

You may know something that I do not. I thought everything was inodes.

This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!

More information about the fedora-list mailing list