Re: [SLE] defrag for linux-answered at TLDP
Sid Boyce <sboyce@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 29 November 2003 14:06, Stephen W wrote:
Users of the ext2 file system can probably do without d efrag, because ext2 contains extra code to keep fragmentation reduced ---(test snipped)---
So what avout Reiserfs? Does it do defragging too?
---<text snipped>---
Sid wrote a very nice reply reminding us that defrag: "..it's like taking ski gear on an African safari" and how Linux is not M$. Sid's comments reminds me of that old joke which is sometimes attributed to Kevin Wilcox, namely: "Windows - A thirty two bit extension and gui shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two bit company that can't stand one bit of competition." Whereas, when I started many years ago running fortran and cobol programs on IBM 360, and "Unix" was still being developed at AT&T, I was very concerned about "how long" my program ran because I was charged by the second. (and I had a limited budget). I would arrange data so program would go as fast as possible. When we were doing work on the Soil Data Bank in the '70's for Alyeska we had the some of the same worries, and would have programs which presorted the data, etc.to cut down run times. However, "Defragging" of the disk or tape was notnever anissue, and to my small mind it has to do with how Unix / Linux uses it "swap space" and how it "delays writing to tape / disk, and thus how it runs the data in and out of memory and in and out of backup medium. That's why Linux has "sync". I am sure M$ has a similar command, however, i don't remember what it is... And I am sure people who understand files system better than I do are LOL at my simplistic reasoning. Gar -- "The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a question, but to post the wrong information." - Aahz' Law -- __________________________________________________________________ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
GarUlbricht7@netscape.net wrote:
Sid Boyce <sboyce@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 29 November 2003 14:06, Stephen W wrote:
Users of the ext2 file system can probably do without d efrag, because ext2 contains extra code to keep fragmentation reduced
---(test snipped)---
So what avout Reiserfs? Does it do defragging too?
---<text snipped>---
Sid wrote a very nice reply reminding us that defrag: "..it's like taking ski gear on an African safari" and how Linux is not M$.
Sid's comments reminds me of that old joke which is sometimes attributed to Kevin Wilcox, namely:
"Windows - A thirty two bit extension and gui shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two bit company that can't stand one bit of competition."
Whereas, when I started many years ago running fortran and cobol programs on IBM 360, and "Unix" was still being developed at AT&T, I was very concerned about "how long" my program ran because I was charged by the second. (and I had a limited budget).
I would arrange data so program would go as fast as possible. When we were doing work on the Soil Data Bank in the '70's for Alyeska we had the some of the same worries, and would have programs which presorted the data, etc.to cut down run times.
However, "Defragging" of the disk or tape was notnever anissue, and to my small mind it has to do with how Unix / Linux uses it "swap space" and how it "delays writing to tape / disk, and thus how it runs the data in and out of memory and in and out of backup medium.
That's why Linux has "sync". I am sure M$ has a similar command, however, i don't remember what it is...
And I am sure people who understand files system better than I do are LOL at my simplistic reasoning.
Gar
Back in the 70's, I know how programmers who worked so hard to be so careful that their code fitted a particular space and would run as efficiently as possible. There were lots of concerns then that hardly ever get a mention now, apart from complaints about how long it takes to wind in OpenOffice.org and a few others. People approach using Linux with what they've known previously - a certain mindset that will be remodelled in a short time and I'm sure they'll get there. None can be as embarrassing as what I call "the class of '98", those guys asked how to create an autoexec.bat file under Linux, where is config.sys etc. - I hadn't seen those type of questions from 1991 -1997 or 1999 - 2003, now they are fully fledged Linux experts. Apologies to those particular guys who came to Linux in 1998 for reminding them. I blushed every time I read one of those posts, but treated them gently. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Linux Only Shop.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 05:52:06 -0500 GarUlbricht7@netscape.net wrote:
That's why Linux has "sync". I am sure M$ has a similar command, however, i don't remember what it is... Actually no. The design of the Windows file systems is essentially for an immediate write. In Windows, essentially when a block is to be written, it is done so immediately. Where on Linux (and all other Unixes except maybe SCO), it sits in a kernel buffer until either the driver feels like writing it or a sync is issued.
The bottom line is that there is no need for a defrag on any modern Linux (or Unix) file systems. - -- Jerry Feldman <gaf@blu.org> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/yfsr+wA+1cUGHqkRArbxAJ0X1jtJc+Sr49ntpExdOqvPP/I10ACdGMcM ZjXFO6tepQl1jBToBWQQvyY= =0uGY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jerry Feldman writes: Umm cone cannot handle pgp/mime messages :( Sean
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:23:44 +0000 Sean Rima <sean@tcob1.net> wrote:
Jerry Feldman writes:
Umm cone cannot handle pgp/mime messages :( What is cone. My message was an inline pgp signed message, not a pgp/mime message. Your message was pgp/mime.
- -- Jerry Feldman <gaf@blu.org> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/yg6B+wA+1cUGHqkRAs7EAJ0cg/gHkDx/Px4YASk2YPwLmtZ0xACeIU7s uixHGQgZ5Jakdq0POqflwvQ= =JCZN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
* Jerry Feldman <gaf@blu.org> [11-30-03 10:36]:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:23:44 +0000 Sean Rima <sean@tcob1.net> wrote:
Jerry Feldman writes:
Umm cone cannot handle pgp/mime messages :(
What is cone. My message was an inline pgp signed message, not a pgp/mime message. Your message was pgp/mime.
Appears to be a gui web-based kitchen-sink mail/news reader #:-( -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org
Patrick Shanahan writes:
* Jerry Feldman <gaf@blu.org> [11-30-03 10:36]:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:23:44 +0000 Sean Rima <sean@tcob1.net> wrote:
Jerry Feldman writes:
Umm cone cannot handle pgp/mime messages :(
What is cone. My message was an inline pgp signed message, not a pgp/mime message. Your message was pgp/mime.
Appears to be a gui web-based kitchen-sink mail/news reader #:-(
Cone (COnsole Newsreader And Emailer) is console based (thank god) email/nntp program written by Sam Varshavchik who also wrote Maildrop and Courier-Imap system Sean
Jerry Feldman writes:
Umm cone cannot handle pgp/mime messages :( What is cone. My message was an inline pgp signed message, not a pgp/mime message. Your message was pgp/mime.
Discovered that afterwards, it was a receipe that I had in Maildrop to add it for Mutt. Cone cannot handle, afaics, inline messages. Sean
The Sunday 2003-11-30 at 09:14 -0500, Jerry Feldman wrote:
That's why Linux has "sync". I am sure M$ has a similar command, however, i don't remember what it is... Actually no. The design of the Windows file systems is essentially for an immediate write. In Windows, essentially when a block is to be written, it is done so immediately.
At the risk of being OT, but just for clarity, that is no longer so. It was correct for Dos, but not for recent windozes - and not for old versions using smartcache or similar utility. That's why after a crash or power off windows on boot starts scandisk automatically: there might have been unwritten data. If the cache was separate, there was a flush command. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
participants (6)
-
Carlos E. R. -
GarUlbricht7＠netscape.net -
Jerry Feldman -
Patrick Shanahan -
Sean Rima -
Sid Boyce