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.
True.
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.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
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!
