Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Don't need it. Because of the way Linux file systems are set up, they don't get fragmented until a drive is almost full. If you just google "why you don't need to defragment linux" you will get 216,000 hits like this one:
they don't get fragmented until a drive is almost full.
False. They get fragmented (though admittedly not *that much* as in windows). They key point are I/O schedulers, that reorder operations in a smart manner. So the whole point is not the lack of fragmentation, but the smart scheduling of the I/O which prevents all the stress associated typically to fragmented devices making the performance penalty pointless. However this can vary from fs to fs. Reiserfs has known problems with fragmentation, but the rest of the fs's should be fine unless the disk is almost full as you say. Even fat will perform ok on linux, unlike windows xp and previous versions (know nothing about later ones).
Quote:
If you just google "why you don't need to defragment linux" you will get 216,000 hits like this one:
Most of them telling you the wrong argument I assume, like the one you linked. I stumped with that same thread long ago and posted a correction below, signed as "Jesgue" so you can search for that in the thread to see an extended explanation about elevators or i/o schedulers.
Being that said, you usually don't defragment linux. You could always back a partition up, then format it and restore the backup, which is like a poor man's defrag. That's not too appealing, I know. There're some tools around, you can google for them, like in "defrag ext3", "defrag ntfs linux" or whatever fs you need to defrag.
Never tried it, don't blame me if it fries all your data and spills ketchup over it.
You could also use ext4 as your filesystem, a defragmenter for ext4 is on the way, and it will also be getting an online defragmenter as well so you don't have to worry about that any more.
Please also note that the answer to this question hasn't changed much in the last couple of weeks and that there are threads on this very forum on the subject. About every couple of weeks. And its getting old.
Defragmentation is not a "routine procedure" anymore ... not even for Windows boxes. For one thing, drives are huge, so a contiguous block of space is always easy to come by. Filesystems have improved too. Current Linux (and Windows) filesystems are designed for years of continuous service.
I like sun's answer. whats the point of spending a couple of hours trying to wring a few hundred megs out of a drive (or even a few gigs) when it would honestly be quicker to go to your local electronics retailer, buy a new drive and install. Presto! a significant % reduction in fragmentation.
In an era of contracting resources and all manner of issues, it's nice to have "brute force" solutions that are also "green". An extra hard drive for under $100 can solve all manner of problems---eg it is hands-down the most painless way to set up dual-boot.
In an era of contracting resources and all manner of issues, it's nice to have "brute force" solutions that are also "green". An extra hard drive for under $100 can solve all manner of problems---eg it is hands-down the most painless way to set up dual-boot.
Completely agree. Just over 80£ here in the UK for 1Tb hd. No more defragging. I remember not long ago you had to pay 1£ pr 1Gb of hd space
Mons
EDIT: Guess the situation might be different in Sri Lanka, but in any case, you won't gain anything much by defragging in Linux.
heck, even if you're running a windows environment, theres a better idea, safer idea, and prolly still, quicker idea to defragging. Back up your data, reformat, and re-install. Gets rid of any nasty bits that might be floating around, and will take just as long as that defrag, and accomplish the same thing (and more by getting rid of whatever junk u didnt back up.)
Interesting. Learn something every day. I've seen explanations like the one in the link I posted frequently in the past. Good to learn how it really works.
I have a modern laptop (but due to its small size, the hard drive is only 80GB).
I no longer have Windows (I quit using it, a long time ago), however the NTFS partition is still there. GParted is not allowing me to resize it, even though it is only half-full, which apparently is due to fragmentation. The partition used to be full. It is now mid-2011. A tool would still be useful. I have to copy everything off (I'm using a thumb drive... I consider this a week-long project), then delete it and resize my Ext4 partition.
I am trying to make a point: do your best to try not to disprove somebody's needs, because somebody else might come along with the same issue. It happens to me again and again in all of the Linux forums. NTFS is supported in Linux and the use of NTFS partitions implies there is a possibility of fragmentation, so developing a defragmentation tool for use in Linux would be a legitimate idea and also not a bad one.
It doesn't matter how "modern" technology is, I'm still using my Tandy 1000, which asks me to set the time and date and insert a floppy disk every time I turn it on.
Last edited by patrick_the_fat; 04-24-2011 at 02:32 PM.
But if you aren't using it, why not back up all data, and then reformat
the whole NTFS partition to a Linux file system + click apply in Gparted.
Now it should then be possible to do a resize.
And : Please do not use any old threads for questions, etc.
Better instead start a new thread.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.