Linux 'defrag' equivalent - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Linux 'defrag' equivalent - Ubuntu ; On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:03:40 +0200, Carsten A. Arnholm wrote: > Stephan Rose wrote: >> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:42:43 +0100, Richard wrote: >> >>> Possibly another stupid question but, is this necessary? Is there >>> one? >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

  1. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:03:40 +0200, Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:

    > Stephan Rose wrote:
    >> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:42:43 +0100, Richard wrote:
    >>
    >>> Possibly another stupid question but, is this necessary? Is there
    >>> one?

    >>
    >> Necessary? Not really.
    >> Is there one? Yes.
    >>
    >> Lemme put it this way, my system is used heavily as a development
    >> system. On a daily basis it churns through several hundred source
    >> files repeatedly while I go work on my project, make code changes,
    >> etc. So that's a lot of file IO, object files being created, deleted
    >> again, created again, and so on. Prime candidate for fragmentation.
    >>
    >> XP I generally need to defragment every other week at least under
    >> those conditions or I will notice performance drop.
    >>
    >> This Ubuntu Install on the other hand is about 4 months old now and
    >> hasn't seen a defrag once nor has it slowed down even the tiniest
    >> amount. It's still the same as it was the first day.

    >
    > Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on Linux
    > file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt the fact that
    > fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof never hurts.
    >


    Not that I'm aware of.

    --
    Stephan
    2003 Yamaha R6

    君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
    君のこと忘れたときがないから

  2. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:

    > Stephan Rose wrote:
    >> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:42:43 +0100, Richard wrote:
    >>
    >>> Possibly another stupid question but, is this necessary? Is there
    >>> one?

    >>
    >> Necessary? Not really.
    >> Is there one? Yes.
    >>
    >> Lemme put it this way, my system is used heavily as a development
    >> system. On a daily basis it churns through several hundred source
    >> files repeatedly while I go work on my project, make code changes,
    >> etc. So that's a lot of file IO, object files being created, deleted
    >> again, created again, and so on. Prime candidate for fragmentation.
    >>
    >> XP I generally need to defragment every other week at least under
    >> those conditions or I will notice performance drop.
    >>
    >> This Ubuntu Install on the other hand is about 4 months old now and
    >> hasn't seen a defrag once nor has it slowed down even the tiniest
    >> amount. It's still the same as it was the first day.

    >
    > Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on Linux
    > file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt the fact
    > that fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof never hurts.
    >

    Fragmentation is a non-use on a multi-user operating system. Now, go away.

    Cheers.

    --

    Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.
    Intelligent and helpful Windoze error messages: http://tinyurl.com/2ks5dz






  3. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    NoStop wrote:
    > Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:
    >> Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on
    >> Linux file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt
    >> the fact that fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof
    >> never hurts.
    >>

    > Fragmentation is a non-use on a multi-user operating system. Now, go
    > away.


    Which part of the question did you not understand? You are not helpful.

    --
    Carsten A. Arnholm
    http://arnholm.org/
    N59.776 E10.457



  4. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Stephan Rose wrote:
    > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:03:40 +0200, Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:
    >
    >> Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on
    >> Linux file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt
    >> the fact that fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof
    >> never hurts.
    >>

    >
    > Not that I'm aware of.


    Thanks for the answer. Something like that might be useful for convincing
    Windows users if nothing else!

    --
    Carsten A. Arnholm
    http://arnholm.org/
    N59.776 E10.457




  5. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    * Carsten A. Arnholm wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    > Stephan Rose wrote:
    >> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:03:40 +0200, Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:


    >>> Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on
    >>> Linux file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt
    >>> the fact that fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof
    >>> never hurts.


    >> Not that I'm aware of.


    > Thanks for the answer. Something like that might be useful for convincing
    > Windows users if nothing else!


    Convincing them of what?

    --
    David
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org/

    INSIDE, I have the same personality disorder as LUCY RICARDO!!

  6. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:

    > NoStop wrote:
    >> Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:
    >>> Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on
    >>> Linux file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt
    >>> the fact that fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof
    >>> never hurts.
    >>>

    >> Fragmentation is a non-use on a multi-user operating system. Now, go
    >> away.

    >
    > Which part of the question did you not understand? You are not helpful.
    >


    Well, since fragmentation is a non-issue, why do you assume anyone would
    bother to write a tool to display it?

    If you absolutely need to know the fragmentation stae of files,
    use "filefrag". It will report the number of extents of a file, and at
    which point(s) in the file they exist
    --
    Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware


  7. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    SINNER wrote:

    > * Carsten A. Arnholm wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >> Stephan Rose wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:03:40 +0200, Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:

    >
    >>>> Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on
    >>>> Linux file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt
    >>>> the fact that fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof
    >>>> never hurts.

    >
    >>> Not that I'm aware of.

    >
    >> Thanks for the answer. Something like that might be useful for convincing
    >> Windows users if nothing else!

    >
    > Convincing them of what?
    >


    That no amount of proof will sway them from the "One Redmond Way"

    Actually, I don't care at all for "proof" for windows users. If they are not
    smart enough to boot a liveCD to look for themselves, they should
    absolutely stay on windows. They would be a loss for linux
    --
    Howe's Law: Everyone has a scheme that will not work.


  8. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    SINNER wrote:
    > * Carsten A. Arnholm wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >> Stephan Rose wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:03:40 +0200, Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:

    >
    >>>> Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on
    >>>> Linux file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt
    >>>> the fact that fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof
    >>>> never hurts.

    >
    >>> Not that I'm aware of.

    >
    >> Thanks for the answer. Something like that might be useful for
    >> convincing Windows users if nothing else!

    >
    > Convincing them of what?


    Convincing Windows users (i.e. potential Linux users) that in fact the linux
    file systems don't fragment very much.

    For example, take an NTFS partition and look at it in the Windows XP
    defragger after a few days of heavy use, it looks very bad. By doing the
    same under Linux and e.g. ext3 and then compare the file systems
    fragmentation graphically, one could more easily see the difference. Many
    people with Windows only experience take disk fragmentation as an
    unavoidable fact, so some illustration like that could be effective.

    --
    Carsten A. Arnholm
    http://arnholm.org/
    N59.776 E10.457



  9. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Peter Khlmann wrote:
    > Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:
    >
    >> NoStop wrote:
    >>> Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:
    >>>> Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on
    >>>> Linux file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt
    >>>> the fact that fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof
    >>>> never hurts.
    >>>>
    >>> Fragmentation is a non-use on a multi-user operating system. Now, go
    >>> away.

    >>
    >> Which part of the question did you not understand? You are not
    >> helpful.
    >>

    >
    > Well, since fragmentation is a non-issue, why do you assume anyone
    > would bother to write a tool to display it?


    Well, it is not unheard-of to verify a hypothesis, is it?

    > If you absolutely need to know the fragmentation stae of files,
    > use "filefrag". It will report the number of extents of a file, and at
    > which point(s) in the file they exist


    Ok, so someone has done something in this area anyway then :-)

    --
    Carsten A. Arnholm
    http://arnholm.org/
    N59.776 E10.457



  10. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:
    [snip]
    > Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on Linux
    > file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt the fact that
    > fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof never hurts.


    No, AFAIK, there is no such visualization tool.

    Remember, no one denies that the Linux filesystems have fragmentation. All we
    are saying is that fragmentation _does not_ cause problems on a linux system.
    (Remember, the *only* reason that Windows users are concerned about
    fragmentation is that fragmentation causes problems in Windows).

    A visualization tool could only show you the pattern of file fragmentation. It
    could not show you /why/ such fragmentation does not cause problems in Linux,
    nor why it would cause problems in Windows.

    --
    Lew Pitcher

    Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | Registered Linux User #112576
    http://pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca/ | GPG public key available by request
    ---------- Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing. ------


  11. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:

    > Peter Khlmann wrote:
    >> Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:
    >>
    >>> NoStop wrote:
    >>>> Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:
    >>>>> Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on
    >>>>> Linux file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt
    >>>>> the fact that fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof
    >>>>> never hurts.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Fragmentation is a non-use on a multi-user operating system. Now, go
    >>>> away.
    >>>
    >>> Which part of the question did you not understand? You are not
    >>> helpful.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Well, since fragmentation is a non-issue, why do you assume anyone
    >> would bother to write a tool to display it?

    >
    > Well, it is not unheard-of to verify a hypothesis, is it?


    What "hypothesis"?. That fragmentation is a non-issue on a
    multi-tasking/multi-user system?
    Well, I will tell you some real secret: It is a non-issue.
    Single-user systems like windows (all versions) might profit from a
    non-fragmented state of files.
    Other, more intelligently written OS like linux try to avoid fragmentation
    by their allocation strategy. But at the same time, it has no dire
    consequences. The disk-heads will be all over the platters nonetheless, so
    what real advantage is in contiguous files (the exception being
    swap-partitions/swap-files, since less overhead in computing the offset is
    needed)

    >> If you absolutely need to know the fragmentation stae of files,
    >> use "filefrag". It will report the number of extents of a file, and at
    >> which point(s) in the file they exist

    >
    > Ok, so someone has done something in this area anyway then :-)
    >


    Yes. And, instead of writing an unuseable GUI tool, it provides exact
    numbers. A GUI (windows-like toy) would provide you nothing to work with

    --
    Microsoft software doesn't get released - it escapes, leaving
    a trail of destruction behind it.


  12. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:

    > SINNER wrote:
    >> * Carsten A. Arnholm wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >>> Stephan Rose wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:03:40 +0200, Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on
    >>>>> Linux file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt
    >>>>> the fact that fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof
    >>>>> never hurts.

    >>
    >>>> Not that I'm aware of.

    >>
    >>> Thanks for the answer. Something like that might be useful for
    >>> convincing Windows users if nothing else!

    >>
    >> Convincing them of what?

    >
    > Convincing Windows users (i.e. potential Linux users) that in fact the
    > linux file systems don't fragment very much.
    >
    > For example, take an NTFS partition and look at it in the Windows XP
    > defragger after a few days of heavy use, it looks very bad. By doing the
    > same under Linux and e.g. ext3 and then compare the file systems
    > fragmentation graphically, one could more easily see the difference. Many
    > people with Windows only experience take disk fragmentation as an
    > unavoidable fact, so some illustration like that could be effective.
    >


    No. It would be "effective" only for fools who believe in the myth
    that "fragmentation has to be avoided like the plague"
    Although for the braindead windows-FS it even is sort of true
    --
    Howe's Law: Everyone has a scheme that will not work.


  13. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    On 2007-09-07, Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:
    > SINNER wrote:
    >> * Carsten A. Arnholm wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >>> Stephan Rose wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:03:40 +0200, Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on
    >>>>> Linux file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt
    >>>>> the fact that fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof
    >>>>> never hurts.

    >>
    >>>> Not that I'm aware of.

    >>
    >>> Thanks for the answer. Something like that might be useful for
    >>> convincing Windows users if nothing else!

    >>
    >> Convincing them of what?

    >
    > Convincing Windows users (i.e. potential Linux users) that in fact the linux
    > file systems don't fragment very much.


    The file system *is* fragmented; it improves performance.


    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson, author |
    Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
    A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
    2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence

  14. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    On 2007-09-07, Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:
    > Stephan Rose wrote:
    >> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:42:43 +0100, Richard wrote:
    >>
    >>> Possibly another stupid question but, is this necessary? Is there
    >>> one?

    >>
    >> Necessary? Not really.
    >> Is there one? Yes.
    >>
    >> Lemme put it this way, my system is used heavily as a development
    >> system. On a daily basis it churns through several hundred source
    >> files repeatedly while I go work on my project, make code changes,
    >> etc. So that's a lot of file IO, object files being created, deleted
    >> again, created again, and so on. Prime candidate for fragmentation.
    >>
    >> XP I generally need to defragment every other week at least under
    >> those conditions or I will notice performance drop.
    >>
    >> This Ubuntu Install on the other hand is about 4 months old now and
    >> hasn't seen a defrag once nor has it slowed down even the tiniest
    >> amount. It's still the same as it was the first day.

    >
    > Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on Linux
    > file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt the fact that
    > fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof never hurts.
    >

    I think we have this in the previous posters experience.

    Look, Linux does not require a reboot after installing, or removing a
    programme. It is a multi user, multi tasking system.

    Think about it. Anoucement to all users, a defrag will occur in 1min. Log
    off. The person doing the annoucing would soon be dead or out of sight.

    Linux is *not* MS windows in so many ways. Linux housekeeps so well you can
    go fishing. Ms Penguin says its the only way to go.

  15. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    On 2007-09-07, SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid> wrote:
    > * Carsten A. Arnholm wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >> Stephan Rose wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:03:40 +0200, Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:

    >
    >>>> Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on
    >>>> Linux file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt
    >>>> the fact that fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof
    >>>> never hurts.

    >
    >>> Not that I'm aware of.

    >
    >> Thanks for the answer. Something like that might be useful for convincing
    >> Windows users if nothing else!

    >
    > Convincing them of what?
    >

    Goo thing Ms Penguin is off fishing. She is convincing MS windows users that
    there are alternatives and that they work.

  16. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:44:36 +0000, NoStop wrote:


    > If you were to hibernate your computer, the contents of your RAM would be
    > dumped to the swap. It has to be large enough to at least accomodate your
    > existing RAM, plus some additional for when swapping is normally required.
    >
    > Cheers.
    >


    OK, that explains it. It is using the formula of 1 1/2 times the amount of
    ram I have installed. Same formula Windows uses.

  17. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 01:43:57 +0200, Peter Khlmann wrote:

    > Single-user systems like windows (all versions) might profit from a
    > non-fragmented state of files.
    > Other, more intelligently written OS like linux try to avoid fragmentation
    > by their allocation strategy. But at the same time, it has no dire
    > consequences. The disk-heads will be all over the platters nonetheless, so
    > what real advantage is in contiguous files (the exception being
    > swap-partitions/swap-files, since less overhead in computing the offset is
    > needed)


    The single-user/multi-user argument is complete nonsense. Defragmentation
    may not matter in a multi-user _environment_, but how many Linux-users use
    their desktop that way? When you switch from Windows to Linux, does that
    mean that your system will suddenly be used by 20 people?

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com


  18. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Robert Spanjaard wrote:

    > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 01:43:57 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Single-user systems like windows (all versions) might profit from a
    >> non-fragmented state of files.
    >> Other, more intelligently written OS like linux try to avoid
    >> fragmentation by their allocation strategy. But at the same time, it has
    >> no dire consequences. The disk-heads will be all over the platters
    >> nonetheless, so what real advantage is in contiguous files (the exception
    >> being swap-partitions/swap-files, since less overhead in computing the
    >> offset is needed)

    >
    > The single-user/multi-user argument is complete nonsense.


    Nope. The "system" itself acts as several users. Tempfiles are written.
    Logfiles are written all the time, much more so than in windows.
    Unless you have /tmp and /var on a seperate disk (not just partition) the
    heads will be all over the disk nonetheless
    Additionally, just to start an app global config has to be read in, then
    user-config, which is not at the same place at all. Windows reads those
    from that homungous moster "registry", which resides in Ram after start of
    windows.
    So on a linux system the heads have to move more than on a windows system in
    all cases, so fragmentation is less of an overhead.

    > Defragmentation
    > may not matter in a multi-user _environment_, but how many Linux-users use
    > their desktop that way? When you switch from Windows to Linux, does that
    > mean that your system will suddenly be used by 20 people?
    >


    Irrelevant, as the concepts are already different. Note the near complete
    absence of logfiles in windows. In linux, lots more events are logged. One
    of the reasons being that linux *is* a multi-user system, and finding
    problems would be very difficult without that constant logging
    --
    "SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical reasons*
    why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and
    then."


  19. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Robert Spanjaard wrote:
    > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 01:43:57 +0200, Peter Khlmann wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Single-user systems like windows (all versions) might profit from a
    >> non-fragmented state of files.
    >> Other, more intelligently written OS like linux try to avoid fragmentation
    >> by their allocation strategy. But at the same time, it has no dire
    >> consequences. The disk-heads will be all over the platters nonetheless, so
    >> what real advantage is in contiguous files (the exception being
    >> swap-partitions/swap-files, since less overhead in computing the offset is
    >> needed)
    >>

    >
    > The single-user/multi-user argument is complete nonsense. Defragmentation
    > may not matter in a multi-user _environment_, but how many Linux-users use
    > their desktop that way? When you switch from Windows to Linux, does that
    > mean that your system will suddenly be used by 20 people?



    A Unix-like OS is a multi-user OS.

    Look at your Users and Groups listing to see just how many UIDs there
    really are.

    Or for most of them, cat /etc/passwd (or less /etc/passwd if the list
    scrolls).

    Windows has the Administrator and the System users, and maybe others if
    created.

    File fragmentation should not be affected by the number of users.

    The percentage of Windows "users" who even know what fragmentation is or
    means is quite small.

    --
    John

    No Microsoft products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  20. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    It was on, or about, Sat, 08 Sep 2007 01:29:03 +0200, that as I was
    halfway through a large jam doughnut, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > SINNER wrote:
    >
    >> * Carsten A. Arnholm wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >>> Stephan Rose wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:03:40 +0200, Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> Is there a tool to graphically visualise potential fragmentation on
    >>>>> Linux file systems, e.g. take my ext3 for example? Not that I doubt
    >>>>> the fact that fragmentation is a non-issue, but some hard proof
    >>>>> never hurts.

    >>
    >>>> Not that I'm aware of.

    >>
    >>> Thanks for the answer. Something like that might be useful for
    >>> convincing Windows users if nothing else!

    >>
    >> Convincing them of what?
    >>
    >>

    > That no amount of proof will sway them from the "One Redmond Way"
    >
    > Actually, I don't care at all for "proof" for windows users. If they are
    > not smart enough to boot a liveCD to look for themselves, they should
    > absolutely stay on windows. They would be a loss for linux


    As I posted before, here's why Linux *doesn't* need defragging:-
    http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/
    why_doesn_t_linux_need_defragmenting

    --
    Surely you are not comparing the non-existent Linux (at that time) with
    (Windows)98? - Hadron aka Hadron Quark, Hans Schneider, & Damian O'Leary
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - Thu, 16 Aug 2007
    Message-ID:

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast