> As you can gather from the other responses. defrag isn't used often on a > Linux system. It isn't needed; the Linux kernel and friends do much > better job of allocating space on a hard disk. > > The following two sites begin the explanation. You can explore more > from there. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defragmentation#_note-4 > http://pl.atyp.us/wordpress/?p=241 I have had several threads on this very list about this subject. The threads went something like this (dramatization): Me: I want to defrag my disk Everyone else: Shut up noob. Linux doesn't need to do that winblows M$ nonsense. Me: How could a filesystem never get fragmented. It's not possible. Everyone else: Go back to M$ you. We will have none of this Linux bashing. Fast forward to today, a few years later. I've got several file systems that are showing 20 - 30% non-contiguous as reported by fsck and I have no way other than a cp or dump to fix it. This just doesn't seem right. The real question is not so much if there is fragmentation or not. It is, is there a performance difference or not. Honestly, I can't say for sure. I don't have reliable tests from years ago as to how long it took to copy, write or read from a file to compare it to. I can say this, my performance is not bad enough to warrant the file system dump and restore. So, in conclusion, after years of heavy usage, my file systems still perform reasonably well. It would be nice to be able to defragment your hard drive but realistically, it isn't much needed. I hope that answers your question with real world experience. --- Will Y. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
