Linux 'defrag' equivalent - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Linux 'defrag' equivalent - Ubuntu ; Juarez wrote: > 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

  1. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Juarez wrote:

    > 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.


    I don't know what formula Windoze uses, but if I recall, Windoze writes its
    hibernation dump to a regular file.

    Cheers.

    --

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






  2. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 10:23:50 +0200, Peter Khlmann wrote:

    >> 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


    "All the time"? "All over the disk"? What kind of logs do you keep?

    > 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.


    0,1% less, perhaps.

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


  3. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Robert Spanjaard wrote:

    > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 10:23:50 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >>> 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

    >
    > "All the time"? "All over the disk"? What kind of logs do you keep?
    >


    Fine. Now that you have admitted to know **** about linux, how about simply
    buggering off?
    --
    Don't abandon hope: your Tom Mix decoder ring arrives tomorrow


  4. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Robert Spanjaard wrote:
    > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 10:23:50 +0200, Peter Khlmann wrote:
    >
    >>> 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

    >
    > "All the time"? "All over the disk"? What kind of logs do you keep?
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > 0,1% less, perhaps.
    >

    And the registry is the only thing ms windows reads from disk?

    --

    Xubunt6

    "Xubuntu 6 just installed ..."

  5. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 14:44:51 +0000, NoStop wrote:


    > I don't know what formula Windoze uses, but if I recall, Windoze writes its
    > hibernation dump to a regular file.
    >
    > Cheers.
    >


    I'm talking about the pagefile.sys. It defaults to 1 1/2 times ram
    installed.

  6. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 05:24:52 GMT
    Juarez wrote:

    > I noticed my swap partiton is never used. I have 2gb of ram. Then why did
    > the Ubuntu install default to creating a 3gb swap partition if it is never
    > used?


    Seriously dude, what you do with that extra 3gb if it gave it back to you? :-)

    --
    People say I'm violent.
    Tell 'em it aint true or I'll kick yer teeth in!

  7. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:29:58 +0100, Trevor Best wrote:

    > On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 05:24:52 GMT
    > Juarez wrote:
    >
    >> I noticed my swap partiton is never used. I have 2gb of ram. Then why
    >> did the Ubuntu install default to creating a 3gb swap partition if it
    >> is never used?

    >
    > Seriously dude, what you do with that extra 3gb if it gave it back to
    > you? :-)


    Hey, that could store 90 minutes of high quality porn!

    --
    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

  8. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    On Sat, 8 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.


    No, but if you force a fsck then that will report the degree of
    fragmentation when it's finished.

    $ man tune2fs
    To see about forcing fsck

    Look at Bonager http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=295262 to see
    about doing the same thing from the GUI.

    Goes without saying but don't force fsck on a mounted volume.

    --
    People say I'm violent.
    Tell 'em it aint true or I'll kick yer teeth in!

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