What's the best free disk defragger, not in Windows, for NTFS and FAT drives/partitions?
in [Storage]
|
Prev: My 128 GB flash drive is not working
Next: What's the best free disk defragger, not in Windows, for NTFSand FAT drives/partitions?
From: Rod Speed on 23 Dec 2009 13:52 mscotgrove(a)aol.com wrote > JimR <NoNotRea...(a)notmyemail.com> wrote >> Run Linux, an OS that does not cause disks to become fragmented in the first place. > All file systems have some fragmentation, Nope, there are a few that never fragment at all. They just refuse to write a file when there is no block big enough to write the file to and only allow a file to be extended into the free space that follows it. RT-11 is an example of that. > but FAT is probably the worst as it is often implemented by low operating systems. That has nothing to do with the file system, everything to do with how its implemented. > exFat is a better file system as it maintains a bitmap of clusters used. > This bit map makes it easier to allocate a contingous range of clusters.
From: mscotgrove on 23 Dec 2009 14:21 On Dec 23, 6:52 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > mscotgr...(a)aol.com wrote > > > JimR <NoNotRea...(a)notmyemail.com> wrote > >> Run Linux, an OS that does not cause disks to become fragmented in the first place. > > All file systems have some fragmentation, > > Nope, there are a few that never fragment at all. They just refuse to > write a file when there is no block big enough to write the file to and > only allow a file to be extended into the free space that follows it. > > RT-11 is an example of that. > > > but FAT is probably the worst as it is often implemented by low operating systems. > > That has nothing to do with the file system, everything to do with how its implemented. > > > > > exFat is a better file system as it maintains a bitmap of clusters used.. > > This bit map makes it easier to allocate a contingous range of clusters..- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - DEC were probably just mean and didn't want to write a pretty defragger! No fragmentation means that disks are very hard to utilise fully - unless files are moved (ie in effect defragged) on the fly
From: Rod Speed on 23 Dec 2009 15:33
mscotgrove(a)aol.com wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote >> mscotgr...(a)aol.com wrote >>> JimR <NoNotRea...(a)notmyemail.com> wrote >>>> Run Linux, an OS that does not cause disks to become fragmented in the first place. >>> All file systems have some fragmentation, >> Nope, there are a few that never fragment at all. They just refuse to >> write a file when there is no block big enough to write the file to and >> only allow a file to be extended into the free space that follows it. >> RT-11 is an example of that. >>> but FAT is probably the worst as it is often implemented by low operating systems. >> That has nothing to do with the file system, everything to do with how its implemented. >>> exFat is a better file system as it maintains a bitmap of clusters used. >>> This bit map makes it easier to allocate a contingous range of clusters. > DEC were probably just mean and didn't want to write a pretty defragger! Nope, their other OSs for that hardware did allow files to fragment. Not even possible to have a pretty defragger with an OS that uses a teletype as the terminal. > No fragmentation means that disks are very hard to utilise > fully - unless files are moved (ie in effect defragged) on the fly There is no defragging if files cannot be fragmented in the first place. |