The fat filesystem was originally written for floppies and isn't a very good filesystem for large partitions. If you are saving a 10MB file, it will start writting in the next available hole on the disk regardless of how small that hole is. That is why defragging is important for Windows 95/98. Using NT/XP's NTFS is an improvement. It may not really be necessary to defrag an NTFS drive unless you are going to resize the partition and want to move all of the data to the front of the partition.

The ext3 filesystem is written to be robust and universal for all Linux distro's so it isn't highly tuned for serving up very large files as XFS or JFS might be. If you were writing for a single architecture, you could fine tune a filesystem to take advantage of the architecture, but it wouldn't be as useful for others.
Also, if you are running a server, several processes will be accessing the drive simultaneously, so there wouldn't be any advantage of a defrag program. Also, you would have to run such a program offline anyway. The same would be true of a Windows server. As soon as a service writes to the partition, the defrag program would have to start over.

There are websites that compare the performance of the different filesystems under different circumstances. A search on Google should provide many such articles if you are interested.

Windows pre loads some applications into memory and caches them to hard drive upon boot up. When you launch them they are already partly loaded. That's part of the problem with the OS. You have terminate stay resident apps running in the background that should not be running without your permission or knowledge. Even when you shut the apps down parts of them continue to run TSR.

Some apps like IE are integrated into the OS itself. That's a big problem, you visit a page with malicious code and it has direct access to system files etc.

You can go into the registry with some tools and remove the start up entries for them if you can find them. They will then take longer to open first instance.

Microsoft has done a very good job at integrating their software into their OS for speedy launches and easy user interaction. If that's what a person is interested in then use microsoft. That's not the problem. The problem is windows complete insecurity on a network, it's high cost of ownership and operation, its now ridiculous licensing requirements, using their huge size of the market to kill competitors, stealing other talented peoples ideas and marketing them as their own, ok enough rant.

You launch an app in Linux first instance it launches from start. You close it and it quits running. (Unless its a hung app). That may be what you are referring to.

You can improve Linux system performance by adding RAM, only having what you need launching at start up,
Limit the number of virtual desktops running at once, use a lighter windows mgr, use lighter apps (like sylpheed instead of evolution) etc. Apps like Firefox , Evolution, Acrobat do take a few secs to launch on a Linux box.

I hear it time and time again from Linux users that they always bash Windows. Windows has all these problems, blah blah blah. From my stand point, I see it the other way around. I have been to distrowatch.com and have tried all the top distributions. From what I have gathered while trying them out is that Linux RIGHT NOW is where windows WAS at Windows 98. Linux has so many problems. Granted it has come a very long way in the last 10 years, it is still light years behind Windows. Only thing Linux has going for it that I can tell is the Free nature of it (which I love) and Beryl. There are to many distributions and not enough standards among them all. You go from one distro, to the very same distro of a newer version and your apps don't work any more. Its a pain in the rear.

Windows may be less secure than Linux, but that depends on the user. I know very little about linux and so my Distro is probably very vulnerable because I dont know how to install firewalls or anti virus. I'm still larning how to install software on linux. Seems all the Distro's I have tried go about it different.

I have never been hacked and have never had any problems with XP, Me and beyond are a whole other story. I keep my Anti Virus up to date and a good Non-windows firewall and I am left alone. Most people, the general public, have these pre built computers preloaded with trial software of Norton or Mcafee and have windows firwall. No wounder there computers are so vulnerable.

Linux has a very long way to go to even think of competing with Windows. After playing with it my self, I find it very hard to belive that more and more people are turning to Linux. Its just to much of a pain in the butt to get it running smoothly. Granted it is fun to learn to do it and get pissed off from time to tome, but this is me. I dont think the average user is ready for it.

Someone needs to standardize things such as Installing software, etc.

"Someone needs to standardize things such as Installing software, etc."

Glad you could be part of the solution, instead of part of the vast whining problem that is Windows. Oh, you mean someone else? My mistake.

In all fairness to windows, the last few years I ran Win2K I wasn't running an anti-virus. This worked for me because I used Yahoo to retrieve my email. I do remember one time when I was rebuilding the machine I used at home for my job. I accidentally turned on Outlook before installing the AV. Gawd, what a mess. The machine was compromised within minutes and I had to start all over again - a whole day wasted.

As far as the actual topic of this thread - "Disk Defrag..." I just loaded Win2K to a spare pair of drives on a Promise FastTrak66. Now, that's the sound I was expecting from Linux! Disks banging away, sounding as if they're actually doing something. But, running Linux, you don't get all that clatter from the heads repositioning backwards and forwards for every single sector that has to be read. Instead, Linux filesystems use an "Elevator Algorithm" to run the heads in one direction as much as possible before going in the other direction. Strangely enough, not running around in circles is actually faster. Unfortunately, it's also quieter, and it takes more subtlety on the part of the user to appreciate that that quiet equates to more speed.

changedsoul, I've got some retort for you ... I'm a long-time Windows IT and user. I've got experience with Windows from 3.1 and NT all the way through XP. It's only been recent that I've played with Linux seriously, about 6 months or so. Below are my responses you some of your post:
Where you're right:
- Linux has come a LONG way since it's creation.
Where you're wrong:
- Linux IS NOT at the same place Windows 98 was. Have you taken a look at what is available with Linux compared to what is available to Windows out of the box? SECURITY and STABILITY is MUCH better than 98 could ever have hoped for, and is more than on par with XP and Vista. With the GUI, Linux has every bit of the functionality of the newest Windows eye candy. If Windows Vista doesn't have something like Linux's Beryl, it probably will, as a service pack or add-on just as soon as they "borrow" the idea. What other problems do you perceive with Linux that we can't straighten out?

Kind of shot yourself in the foot there? Well, it sounds like you haven't spent enough time getting to know Linux.
The reason there are so many distros available, is that each distro owner has an idea how they want to set things up, and are willing to take the time to share their ideas and concepts with the rest of us. This is a good part of what the GPL (look it up) is about.

It's good you feel secure with XP. We all need a happy home. I also use XP at my office, but I keep my Linux box on hand for the fun stuff . It's too bad you have to PAY for that AV and firewall software. I personally don't trust software-based firewalls. However, I do like my Linux IPTables firewall. Wanna know why? I get to configure it MYSELF! I know EXACTLY what my firewall is allowing and not allowing. What do you suppose might be slipping through your firewall?

Ok, I'll also admit that it may be difficult to deal with Linux if you've been with Windows for so long. But that's not the OS's fault. This is due to differences in concept and design. Microsoft made Windows to operate a certain way, and you have to do things their way. Linux does some of these things differently. This does not mean either OS does it better. Don't blame Linux for your inability to learn more than one way to "skin that cat"! With the addition of Ubuntu to the "way too many distributions" list, Linux can just as easily be the desktop for anyone with a choice.

This is the natural evolution of things. With the choice and freedom that Linux brings, there will be people who think they can make something better than what's already out, and there will always be the ability to decide what you want to use or do in your OWN operating system.

I recommend that you continue to try out Linux. Don't shun it at this point. Play with your options, and you will be spoiled! .
If you don't like your copy of Linux, just return the original CD with the sales receipt, and we'll return your money! Minus a 20% restocking fee, of course.

P.S. Don't take this in any way as an attack on MS, or their OS's. I think MS has developed good software over the years.

I am and will continue to try and learn Linux. I never said I wasn't. My distro of choice right now is openSuse because it seems to me to be the most stable. And by stable to me I mean being able to install something and not have it mess up my X11. For the first time I am able to play with installing software and when I reboot, I am not left at a bash prompt.

As for my original post, I still do not know why I doubly click on an application shortcut on the desktop to load a program. The mouse cursor changes to the bouncy thing to show the program is launching. After a few seconds, the program does not load and the cursor returns back to normal. I can do this a few times before the program actually loads.

And for Linux disk access being faster than windows, please point me to a place on the net where it can help me configure my system to run more efficiently. Because as of now, my openSuse install takes 4 to 5 times longer than my XP install just to boot up, and openSuse is a fresh install and my XP is bloated. I understand that there are allot more factors in the speed of an OS than just disk access, but having a slow sluggish OS deters me from wanting to do anything with it...except spend hours trying to figure out how to speed it up.

If speed is that much to you, then forget Suse. It's simply the slowest distro I have ever used. It may have many qualities running on a server but it's an absolute slug on the desktop. Try running Debian on xfs, to give only one example, then come back to tell the difference. Don't get me wrong, I'm running Suse myself alright - but if I ever run out of disk space, it will definitely be the first to go.

As for the bumpy cursor, that's another area where Suse really shines. I wonder what your xorg.conf looks like but from experience I can easily imagine that it's a joke. Whenever I install Suse on my system, the first thing I have to do is erase all the nonsense it has somehow managed to come up it with and write myself a new xorg.conf file. Just look at your own xorg.conf and figure out just how many mice it has configured this time: three, four, twenty? That's usually enough to get a system badly confused so that it simply doesn't know how to respond to mouseclicks anymore. So: delete any unrequired mice and see whether it makes a difference.

jay73,

I think changedsoul is talking about the KDE bouncing cursor that shows while the system is processing a startup request. This is KDE eyecandy, not an error.

changedsoul,

I'm glad you're willing to continue working with Linux. I don't know what software you're trying to install that causes X to crash. I recommend you provide a list of software to LQ that is giving you problems.

As far as your apps not loading after the bouncing cursor, I've only really seen that problem with apps like Firefox, where it may not open a new process because one is already running. This is also a problem in MS's Outlook system. In either OS this can usually be fixed by killing any existing running process of the program you are trying to execute.

I wish I knew what software it was. Most of the time I used to break my X was after an update. openSuse has been very good actually with this. I seem to be able to update and things continue to work. Also, my xorg.conf file only has one mouse configured in it. But now we are on a different topic probably better suited in a different area of the forums. Ill post for help in a more appropriate area. Thanks again for the help.

I cannot even begin to imagine what you are doing that is making your distro behave so badly. But, jumping on a Linux forum and challenging one and all to a duel to the death because Linux sucks was probably a bad call on your part. You might want to start over, pick some exact symptom (e.g. you install version W of package X to version Y of distro Z and here is what happens...) and post a specific question asking for help to fix it. It'll get you positive helpful answers, instead of responders who are in attack mode and want a piece of you.

Heh ... That's probably me you're talking about. Reading my posts, I did come on a bit strong.

Linux ain't for all, but it's good for people with open minds, and who don't mind a challenge. Hopefully we gave him something to think about, and he'll take it constructively in the end.

The article you mention:

"Some Amazing Filesystem Benchmarks. Which Filesystem is Best?" at:

[url removed]

can also be found at:
[url removed]
[url removed]


I mention this because the site [url removed] is down more than it is up.

Yeap, its useless.

For example, it takes 988 MB to store 655 MB of raw data (when the data is kernel sources).

Rieser4 (with gzip compression) took 213 MB to store the same 655 MB of raw data.

See: [url removed]