Defragmentation in Linux ?

[djohnston]

"If you install and run Linux on an disk formatted for Fat32 or NTFS"

afik, this can't be done

Linux can be installed and run on a FAT16 or FAT32 with either the syslinux bootloader or the loadlin.exe Windows executable. The syslinux is the easiest to do, and probably runs better on FAT16.

I did some googling anf found these links.

The first one gives an explanation very similar to what I wrote in my first post.

<snip>

The second one is a link to a defragger: http://vleu.net/shake/.

The third one is a link to a defragging script by Con Kolivas: http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/defrag/defrag-0.08/defrag.

Also, do a search for the ext4 defragger e4defrag.

From what I can tell, e3defrag is a userspace utility that requires certain kernel modules to be in place. The Shake defragmenter is a userspace utility that needs no kernel special modules.

What I find interesting about Con Kolivas's script is that it reorders the files on a partition by size from the largest to the smallest. It is also filesystem "agnostic" in that it should work on any filesystem type. I also find his comment in the script interesting:

"Are you really crazy enough to be using this? It might blow your data into tiny little useless chunks."

The xfs filesystem has a defrag utility, xfs_fsr, as part of the filesystem tools. It will safely execute even if the filesystem is mounted and in use.

[jaydot]

i've been using linux since the tail end of 2004 and pclinuxos exclusively since 2005.  in all that time i have not defragmented, nor installed a virus package.  being the laziest person in the multiverse i never do owt that isn't necessary, leaving me more time to play.

[Vortеx]

Easy men!

It's simply ext2fs uses much less disk space than NTFS.
Because of the OS

[AS]

"If you install and run Linux on an disk formatted for Fat32 or NTFS"

afik, this can't be done

Linux can be installed and run on a FAT16 or FAT32 with either the syslinux bootloader or the loadlin.exe Windows executable. The syslinux is the easiest to do, and probably runs better on FAT16.

This is true, but at side Linux will create a special container file to store all fs attributes that can't be stored on FAT filesystems,
I would say ... it's like to strangle the filesystem performance, which are already low on FAT32 fs, practically each read / write need to be performed at least in two places ...

[djohnston]

I would say ... it's like to strangle the filesystem performance, which are already low on FAT32 fs, practically each read / write need to be performed at least in two places ...

I agree, whether it's FAT32 or FAT16. Better to use a native filesystem.

[T6]

that is a yes written in the form of a no

[Abraxas]

Lol, you guy's are funny 
I don't want or need a defragmenter, it's such a wierd word to type when your tired.
I will curb my enthusiasm in future to ask a question that's been floating around in my imagination.
I think something came of it though.

[T6]

 

a good learning experience