David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud) wrote:
mike.mccarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Yes, but...
No, Yes PERIOD.
The point being made is to refute the idea that ext3 inherently
does not fragment files.
[root@bend ~]# filefrag /bin/* | sort -k2 -nr | grep 'would be'
/bin/netstat: 2 extents found, perfection would be 1 extent
/bin/login: 2 extents found, perfection would be 1 extent
Files that are frequently updated will often have some level of
fragmentation. Files that are relatively unchanged tend to be in a
single extent.
Again, the point was that some claim that ext3 does not and will
not fragment files which are not dynamic. I claimed that fragmentation
can occur simply due to install of software, which some claimed
will not and does not occur with ext3. I think that I have demonstrated
my point. In fact, I was quite shocked that it was as bad as that,
frankly.
Also, the stuff in /bin will generally be small, tight,
command line programs. A quick perusal of those listed in your example
shows a number of graphical interface programs that are anything but
small and don't even get me started about the size of emacs (the
probability of change to a program is very directly related to the size
of the program).
I don't use emacs except when I have to. I use MicroEmacs which
I build and maintain myself for all my platforms (MSDOS, Win95/98,
Linux, at one time Solaris and VAX/VMS).
$ ls -l /usr/bin/emacs ~/bin/em
-rwxr-x--- 1 jmccarty jmccarty 505567 Oct 26 2004 /home/jmccarty/bin/em
-rwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4408492 Feb 4 2005 /usr/bin/emacs
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!
