Linux - SoftwareThis forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.
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.
I'm not very sure on this topic but from what I've heard, you don't need to defrag linux filesystems.
I think it's related to the fact that generally files can be overwritten while they're still in use, and that the ext3, reiserFS filesystems are pretty well done.
Again I really have no idea, that's just a guess - I would like some correcting on this
You don't need it. EXT2 was designed to be smarter than FATs, so it doesn't fragment anywhere near as bad. It's the same reason there isn't a defrag shipped with Windows NT/2000/XP. Not sure about the last, but since it's still NTFS, I doubt it has a defragger.
Besides not needing it, some sites say you can mess up your filesystem trying to run a defragger.
It does frag. However, it's so slight even after many many many files moving around, adding and removing, it's still so slight that it's not worth it. You could, and there are some tools (suggestions rather) out there to do it, however really, it's not worth it. After 10 years you might need to, but I think at that point you might consider an upgrade of some sort
Originally posted by ranger_nemo You don't need it. EXT2 was designed to be smarter than FATs, so it doesn't fragment anywhere near as bad. It's the same reason there isn't a defrag shipped with Windows NT/2000/XP. Not sure about the last, but since it's still NTFS, I doubt it has a defragger.
Besides not needing it, some sites say you can mess up your filesystem trying to run a defragger.
Ummmm, NT,2000,and XP all have built in defrag utilities.
If it was really that worthwhile, surely some passionate open source programmers would have written many programs to do it.
freshmeat -> they're there.
; )
Quote:
Yes I remember reading somewhere that one of the methods was to simply copy your entire / somewhere, do a rm -Rf / and then copy them back
yes, this is actually used as a method (believe it or not). This is usually applied only to heavily used corporate disks (eg. constantly updated databses, etc.) With such things as heavily used databases, defrag happens more than usual, so one does indeed have to rewrite the data to the disk (whcih puts everything order)
For all you curious people, fsck will tell you non-contingency of a partition
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.