defragfs

ninja master · 02-23-2009, 07:20 AM

is not so good.

before

Code:

defragfs 0.8, Released under GPL by xucanhao@gmail.com
Analysis in progress...
NOTE: if the directory you specified contains too much files(e.g. tens of thousands), it could take you several minutes on analysis, you may disturb it by CTRL+C at anytime. And BTW: the program is CURRENTLY not accurate on Reiser4 due to its default tailing policy(you may see a high fragment rate before and even after)
Statistics for .
Total Files:                    201
Fragmented Files:               198
File Fragmentation Rate:        98.5074626865672%
Avg File Fragments(1 is best):  385.845771144279

and after

Code:

You need AT LEAST 367249408 Bytes temporarily used for defragmentation(at the directory where you specified), continue(Y/N)?[N] Y
OK, please drink a cup of tea and wait...
#########################################################################################################################################################################################################Done!
Now lets see the results...
Statistics for .
Total Files:                    201
Fragmented Files:               198
File Fragmentation Rate:        98.5074626865672%
Avg File Fragments(1 is best):  384.865671641791

can we please get a decent defrag program going, and please do not tell me the myth that linux doesnt suffer from file fragmentation.

mrclisdue · 02-23-2009, 09:36 AM

As far as the "software" that you're using to produce these results:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...light=defragfs

If you aren't familiar with thread, and you don't feel like reading all c.150 posts, in a nutshell, the OP, who wrote the code you're using, was, for all intents and purposes, shown to be a tad "over-exuberant" in the self-promotion of his code. (imho)

At one point, Mr. Ts'o, who is considered an expert vis-a-vis filesystems, etc., questioned whether even defragging Windows filesystems was worthwhile.

There's a thread going on in the Slackware forum:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ckware-706556/

in which gnashley, in post #7, has credited and posted a shell script which will defrag an fs on-the-fly.

cheers,

i92guboj · 02-23-2009, 09:53 AM

There's also http://vleu.net/shake/

Tools to defrag ext4 as in the way, and also an on-line defragmenter for it. But I haven't followed the issue lately so I don't know the current state of things in ext4. I use it without problems though, and it comes included since linux 2.6.28

pixellany · 02-23-2009, 03:08 PM

Moved: This thread is more suitable in <software> and has been moved accordingly to help your thread/question get the exposure it deserves.

ninja master · 02-26-2009, 10:50 AM

thanks pixellany =) and other guy =)

ninja master · 02-26-2009, 11:03 AM

yes, thanks for the shell script thread. the original defrag software was total trash, it would freeze up my quad core machine with 8 gigs of ram!

H_TeXMeX_H · 02-26-2009, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninja master

can we please get a decent defrag program going, and please do not tell me the myth that linux doesnt suffer from file fragmentation.

Sorry, but it's not a myth, I believe it is your misunderstanding. ext2/ext3 is the most prone to fragmentation of all the filesystems available for Linux (because it doesn't support extents along with old reiserfs, try ext4 or reiser4, which do), but even so it will only happen if you keep the partition nearly completely (80 %) full, other than that case there will be no fragmentation.

Read this article thoroughly it explains things in layman's terms so that anyone can understand it:
http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/ind..._defragmenting

ninja master · 02-27-2009, 12:12 PM

indeed, your link is good, and it explains why files that are over 100 megs CAN fragment. if you go past (z,z) on the table, you can fragment. it also explains why fragmentation is not such a problem under nix, as your dealing with LARGE fragmented chunks instead of every single bit being a problem.