Re: non-contiguous vs Fragmentation
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 11:00:56AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> "Joe Smith" wrote:
...
> > What then is the difference between non-contiguous and fragmentation?
...
"Non-contiguous" simply describes what the term "fragmentation" really
entails when you look at how a file is written onto a drive. Data on a
drive is written into predefined blocks (predefined by the OS's file system)
called clusters. If a file is written into clusters all adjacent to one
another (contiguous) then it is not fragmented...
> > How can my hard drive be 9.7 % non-contiguous if
> > the ext2 filesystem is supposed to be anti-fragmenting?
>
> It's not _anti_ -fragmenting. If your disk is getting full, it
> may start to get fragmented.
(I was going to say "@#$%^! happens" but thought better of it... :)
AFAIK that isn't a bad number. Of course, one is left without knowing what
constitutes bad, too. The figure has much to do with average file sizes,
percent use (space and clusters), and how often you change those files...
Kenward
(Sorry for using your post, Peter, but the original got chopped earlier in
my zeal to wade through my email...)
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Reply to: