Disk defragmenter in Linux
mike.mccarty at sbcglobal.net
Fri Dec 30 18:23:18 UTC 2005
Jim Cornette wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>>>> Surely those who argue that ext3 does not get fragmented
>>>> during install don't think that 248 extents is "not
>>>> significant fragmentation".
>>>> I assure you that I have done nothing on my system to try to
>>>> fragment emacs.
>>> The fragmentation for your emacs is unbelievably high. I did not find
>>> anything yet fragmented in the hundreds, let alone several hundred
>>> extents. Are you using LVM? My system is setup in traditional
>>> partitions. LVM usage "seemed" slower in responsiveness, so I assumed
>>> it was more in fragments
>> Why "unvelievably"? Do you mean that you do not believe what my
>> system says? Or that you do not believe my e-mail? Or that you
>> find that it stretches your imagination? Or what?
>> To answer your question, I use FC2.
> Unbelievable simply refers to this fragmentation number sounds like it
Well, then I agree with you. This seems extreme.
> should not happen. I have no doubt that you are seeing this on your
> system. Since you are running FC2, I assume the system is using regular
> partitions and that the system has been in operation for a long time.
> Sorry if the response sounded otherwise.
It was installed in late October 2004. Although, as one pointed
out, multiple extents does not *necessarily* imply fragmentation,
it is extremely suggestive, and indicates that fragmentation is
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