On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 11:46 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > Tim wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 18:27 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > > > >>What I *did* claim is that ext3 is subject to fragmentation. > > > > > > The "so what" answer is probably the best answer that you're going to > > If you actually bothered to read what went before, you'd see > that is response is malapropos. > > [snip] > > > I don't worry about fragmentation any more than I worry about other > > technicalities of how the data is put onto the drive. > > Arguing against claims I haven't made. *sigh* Not true, Mike. Both the original poster and you discussed performance: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2005-December/msg03298.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2005-December/msg03340.html and you asserted: "Umm, I believe the argument is not that it defrags itself, just that the type of fragmentation it enjoys does not affect performance. Some sort of fertilizer[*], if you ask me." So, please come up with some actual measurements that will back up your "fertilizer" story. Ed -- Edward H. Hill III, PhD office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Rm 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 emails: eh3@xxxxxxx ed@xxxxxxx URLs: http://web.mit.edu/eh3/ http://eh3.com/ phone: 617-253-0098 fax: 617-253-4464
