Linux 'defrag' equivalent - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Linux 'defrag' equivalent - Ubuntu ; Possibly another stupid question but, is this necessary? Is there one?...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

  1. Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Possibly another stupid question but, is this necessary? Is there one?



  2. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Richard wrote:
    > Possibly another stupid question but, is this necessary? Is there one?
    >
    >

    simple answer: no and no. Someone will be along soon with the more
    complex answer!

  3. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Richard illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > Possibly another stupid question but, is this necessary? Is there one?


    No need to defrag. The ext2/ext3/reiserfs filesystems that are linux
    native do all that for you on the fly to a degree.

    Hence why there isn't a readily available defrag program.

    Here's something that may be of interest if you really must make
    ubuntu feel like windows....
    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=169551
    ;-)

    --
    Moog

    "Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
    leather straps."

  4. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    * Richard wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:

    > Possibly another stupid question but, is this necessary? Is there one?
    >


    No, not necessary
    http://dataexpedition.com/~sbnoble/T...lesystems.html

    --
    David

  5. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Richard wrote:
    > Possibly another stupid question but, is this necessary? Is there one?


    http://www.salmar.com/pipermail/wftl...ch/000603.html

    All "fragmented" drives are better than "unfragmented" ones on a
    multiuser multitasking o/s. The point is that the machine is
    doing many things simultaneously, so it has to jump arround even
    if one task is interested in only one file. There will be up to a
    hundred tasks doing i/o simultaneously.

    Yes, all disk drivers use elevator algorithms, in any o/s.

    But to answer your question, ext2s spreads blocks out evenly
    through the disk, using various strategies (well, a single mixed
    strategy).. This reduces the average seek time on a single
    elevator pass.
    http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=331862

    you don't have to defrag in linux .. the file system is organized
    and stored more efficiently than a windows machine. If you really
    want to then i can suggest you go to something like
    www.google.ca/linux and search for "linux defrag" or something,
    and grab a utility .. they do exist, but unnessesary..
    --
    HPT

  6. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    No and NO.
    "Richard" wrote in message
    news:NcadnRCKluvU-33bnZ2dnUVZ8q6unZ2d@bt.com...
    > Possibly another stupid question but, is this necessary? Is there one?
    >




  7. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:58:18 +0000, SINNER wrote:

    > * Richard wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >
    >> Possibly another stupid question but, is this necessary? Is there one?
    >>

    >
    > No, not necessary
    > http://dataexpedition.com/~sbnoble/T...lesystems.html
    >


    I liked this paragraph:

    "The model above was created at a time when disk space was much more
    limited and less reliable than today. Storage capacity has grown much more
    quickly than the size of most operating systems (except Windows), and hard
    drives are inexpensive. Since RAM is also cheap, swap space is used only
    as a rare fallback, and so using swap files on the main partition has
    become a common practice."

    --
    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

    "Mountain Mike^^" writes:

    > No and NO.


    Wrong. Primarily because (a) Linux is not a filesystem and (b) yes,
    certain filesystems that work with Linux can and do get fragmented.

    Having said that there is probably no reason you would want to bother -
    it's not a showstopper in any shape or form.

    e2defrag exists for one.

    > "Richard" wrote in message
    > news:NcadnRCKluvU-33bnZ2dnUVZ8q6unZ2d@bt.com...
    >> Possibly another stupid question but, is this necessary? Is there one?
    >>


  9. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    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.

    --
    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

  10. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Hadron wrote:

    > "Mountain Mike^^" writes:
    >
    >> No and NO.

    >
    > Wrong. Primarily because (a) Linux is not a filesystem and (b) yes,
    > certain filesystems that work with Linux can and do get fragmented.
    >
    > Having said that there is probably no reason you would want to bother -
    > it's not a showstopper in any shape or form.
    >
    > e2defrag exists for one.
    >


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3

    /quote
    There is no online ext3 defragmentation tool working on the filesystem
    level. An offline ext2 defragmenter, e2defrag, exists but requires that the
    ext3 filesystem be converted back to ext2 first. But depending on the
    feature bits turned on on the filesystem, e2defrag may destroy data; it
    does not know how to treat many of the newer ext3 features.

    There are userspace defragmentation tools like Shake and defrag, which work
    by copying each file and hoping the newly allocated file was not
    fragmented. However this only works if the filesystem is reasonably empty,
    and such filesystems are not usually fragmented. A true defragmentation
    tool does not exist for ext3.
    /unquote

    As usual, the "true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs
    user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server
    admin", "newsreader magician" and "hardware maven" Hadron Quark, aka Hans
    Schneider, aka Damian O'Leary tries to tell noobs half the story, and
    preferrably the wrong half

    Hadron, when will you start to help newbs, instead of trying to destroy
    their systems?

    "e2defrag" is *old* and should never have been written. Much less should
    anyone tell a newb about it, without at the same time telling him *not* to
    use it ever
    --
    The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
    the day they start making vacuum cleaners.


  11. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    * Hadron wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    > "Mountain Mike^^" writes:


    >> No and NO.


    > Wrong. Primarily because (a) Linux is not a filesystem


    Irrelevant. The question was not "Is there a way to defrag Linux?" You
    obviously enjoy disagreeing with just about any advice you yourself
    haven't given.

    --
    David
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

    I have defined the hundred per cent American as ninety-nine per cent an idiot.
    -- George Bernard Shaw

  12. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:42:43 +0100, Richard wrote:

    > Possibly another stupid question but, is this necessary? Is there one?


    No. Probably. I used to accomplish that on Unix systems with 'dump' and
    'restore'.


  13. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:00:01 +0000, SINNER wrote:

    > * Hadron wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >> "Mountain Mike^^" writes:

    >
    >>> No and NO.

    >
    >> Wrong. Primarily because (a) Linux is not a filesystem

    >
    > Irrelevant. The question was not "Is there a way to defrag Linux?"
    > You obviously enjoy disagreeing with just about any advice you
    > yourself haven't given.


    As has been pointed out many times before hadron has reading
    comprehension difficulties. It is one of his lesser failings but
    certainly one of the most amusing.

  14. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    It was on, or about, Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:57:02 +0100, that as I was
    halfway through a large jam doughnut, Derek Turner wrote:

    > Richard wrote:
    >> Possibly another stupid question but, is this necessary? Is there one?
    >>
    >>

    > simple answer: no and no. Someone will be along soon with the more
    > complex answer!


    Here's why a Linux filesystem does not require to be defragged:-
    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:

  15. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:13:41 -0500, Stephan Rose wrote:


    > I liked this paragraph:
    >
    > "The model above was created at a time when disk space was much more
    > limited and less reliable than today. Storage capacity has grown much more
    > quickly than the size of most operating systems (except Windows), and hard
    > drives are inexpensive. Since RAM is also cheap, swap space is used only
    > as a rare fallback, and so using swap files on the main partition has
    > become a common practice."
    >


    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?

  16. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Juarez schreef:
    > On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:13:41 -0500, Stephan Rose wrote:
    >
    >
    >> I liked this paragraph:
    >>
    >> "The model above was created at a time when disk space was much more
    >> limited and less reliable than today. Storage capacity has grown much more
    >> quickly than the size of most operating systems (except Windows), and hard
    >> drives are inexpensive. Since RAM is also cheap, swap space is used only
    >> as a rare fallback, and so using swap files on the main partition has
    >> become a common practice."
    >>

    >
    > 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?


    Because 'it' has to cater for all kinds of users, not just you.
    Some applications use a lot of RAM, some users leave a lot of
    applications open.
    These are all reasons why you might run out of free RAM, would there at
    such a moment not be a swap available the system would crash.
    But you are free to use the swap for other things, with the price of HD
    space at about 50 cents (Dollar or euro) per GB a dubious endeavour.

  17. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    p5000011 writes:

    > On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:00:01 +0000, SINNER wrote:
    >
    >> * Hadron wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >>> "Mountain Mike^^" writes:

    >>
    >>>> No and NO.

    >>
    >>> Wrong. Primarily because (a) Linux is not a filesystem

    >>
    >> Irrelevant. The question was not "Is there a way to defrag Linux?"
    >> You obviously enjoy disagreeing with just about any advice you
    >> yourself haven't given.

    >
    > As has been pointed out many times before hadron has reading
    > comprehension difficulties. It is one of his lesser failings but
    > certainly one of the most amusing.


    Nice snipping. What IS wrong with some of you?

    I pointed out that Linux itself can have MANY different file
    systems. Some do get fragmented to a certain degree. Ask a certain Mr
    Koehlmann who disputed that it is "easy" to create a contiguous file.

    Defraggers have and do exist depending on the file system and the
    versions used.

    Linux file systems do fragment.

    Now, for some reason you chose to snip this bit of my reply:

    ,----
    | Having said that there is probably no reason you would want to bother -
    | it's not a showstopper in any shape or form.
    |
    | e2defrag exists for one.
    `----

    SINNER seems to sugar coat his replies. I think people should get the
    facts. Above are the facts. A blanket "no and no" is, quite simply,
    dishonest. But as is very clear from the original reply that I made
    above I did point out that the fragmentation is unlikely necessary to be
    required.


  18. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    Juarez wrote:

    > On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:13:41 -0500, Stephan Rose wrote:
    >
    >
    >> I liked this paragraph:
    >>
    >> "The model above was created at a time when disk space was much more
    >> limited and less reliable than today. Storage capacity has grown much
    >> more quickly than the size of most operating systems (except Windows),
    >> and hard drives are inexpensive. Since RAM is also cheap, swap space is
    >> used only as a rare fallback, and so using swap files on the main
    >> partition has become a common practice."
    >>

    >
    > 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?


    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.

    --

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






  19. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    * Hadron wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:

    > SINNER seems to sugar coat his replies. I think people should get the
    > facts. Above are the facts. A blanket "no and no" is, quite simply,
    > dishonest.


    But I didnt give that answer AND I offered a link to back up my claim, you
    gave what exactly? Nice insuation there though.

    > But as is very clear from the original reply that I made
    > above I did point out that the fragmentation is unlikely necessary to be
    > required.


    Simply because you felt you had to reply becasue no one else said the same
    thing right? Wrong, tat very answer IE NO was already given, you added
    nothing.

    Your an ass that changes your tune daily. First I am too harsh, now I sugar
    coat. Take your meds. The answer you gave was already given but you needed
    to be Big Man on Campus.

    --
    David

  20. Re: Linux 'defrag' equivalent

    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.

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



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