digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why doesn't Linux need defragmenting?

geekblog.oneandoneis2.org — . . . That is a question that crops up with regularity on Linux forums when new users are unable to find the defrag tool on their shiny new desktop. Here's a brave at giving a simple, non-technical answer as to why some filesystems suffer more from fragmenting than others

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • brisbin33, on 03/26/2008, -4/+17good article, but i still can't figure out the random TOC from xd to zd on 7 of his 12 pictures... thoughts?
    • sark666, on 03/26/2008, -1/+31that's showing where the toc ends.
    • julienbh, on 03/26/2008, -3/+5I know why Linux don't need to defrag... it's because This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota !!
    • ayeroxor, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2thought: SUSPENDED!!!!!
    • Myonosken, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2I still don't understand how this means no need to defrag. The system will still eventually become fragmented after a few years heavy file copying and editing.
      • whitenerdy92, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3not necessarilly, as long as there is enough free space on the hard drive.
      • linuxpenguin, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3No it won't. Read the article. If you don't get the drive too full, it won't fragment.
        It does fragment, but you don't need to defrag - the system will do it automatically once fragmentation's past a certain point - I think it's 1%, but I'm not sure, in the 9 years I've been using Linux I've never seen it get to that point.
    • xptoast, on 03/27/2008, -5/+3This video describes how this works pretty well.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBroSad5Clc
  • Emused, on 03/26/2008, -26/+8$ PATH=pretending! /usr/ucb/which sense
    no sense in pretending!
    • Planets, on 03/26/2008, -0/+20Gesundheit.
    • filefly, on 03/26/2008, -0/+11filefly@chromium:~$ touch /dev/breasts
      touch: cannot touch '/dev/breasts': Permission denied
      • Stradenko, on 03/26/2008, -1/+12sudo touch /dev/breasts
        • spyrochaete, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7man touch
        • capiCrimm, on 03/26/2008, -0/+10umount /women && sudo make sandwich
        • init100, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4avc: denied { touch } for pid=1234 exe=/usr/bin/touch name=breasts dev=dm-0 ino=123456 scontext=root:sysadm_r:touch_t tcontext=system_u:object_r:breast_dev_t tclass=chr_file

          With SELinux, sudo may not help. :)
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5false boobs
          :P

          (Hey, its legal in Bash.)
        • synyster, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3true women?
          (valid in Bash)
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1***** genius.
    • synyster, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4you forgot the most cool/useful command in linux:
      finger Kelly_Brook
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Oh damn, I didn't think of that one.
  • badassninja, on 03/26/2008, -17/+3I just may be way to tired to wrap my head around that tonight
    • gudnbluts, on 03/26/2008, -0/+13Now would be a bad time to discuss trips to Bosnia.
  • Dested, on 03/26/2008, -11/+15After reading this it really made me want to reformat my windows box, anyone know of a decent defrag tool?
    • toxictonic, on 03/26/2008, -3/+13http://www.defraggler.com/
      • Jimu00, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I'm let down. I was hoping this was would get all the damn fraggles out of my house...
    • chingy1788, on 03/26/2008, -3/+26I use something called JKDefrag
      http://www.kessels.com/JkDefrag/
      • TheZorch, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6YAH!!! Another JKDefrag user! I love it, I also love the JKDefrag GUI frontend app which makes it easy to use the utility without command line string arguments.
      • goffy59, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2I'm down with the JKDefrag! I love the screensaver degrag!
      • Manuelmty, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1thank you, i didn't know this one.
        its better and faster than DG-Defragmenter
      • ashwin18, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1I use O&O Defrag
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2We should have a JKDefrag Forum and Chatroom where we can talk with Other JKDefrag Users!

        /does not use JKDefrag
        • piesforyou, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1I actually creamed my pants when I read "JKDefrag".
      • Rikkochet, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Yup, JK is great. I just schedule the commandline app to run every night at 3am and forget about it,
        • specialK16, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3I can hear your hard drive wearing out already.
      • xptoast, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Nice app. I will have to try it out.
    • larsalan, on 03/26/2008, -10/+71linux is a good one
      • trying2hide, on 03/26/2008, -13/+4Yes... to completely rid yourself of the Windoze virus, go to MajorGeeks.com and get a ultility like killdisk and run that first, then install your flavor of Linux. If you are new I suggest Ubuntu.
        • capiCrimm, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3killdisk? That looks like some windows crap freeware.

          Get a system restore cd of some sort(ubuntu live CD should work). Find the harddrive you want to clean, and run shred(something like shred -vrz -n 5 /dev/hda, use man for more info) . Not that you need to erase your harddrive to install linux anyway.
          • VinceNoir, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2n00bs ;'P (Just kidding). Just boot pretty much any Linux CD that has a "rescue mode". Then type (assuming you want to wipe the first master IDE disk in the system):

            dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda

            Is you have SATA, then to wipe the first SATA drive you would do:

            dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda

            Then wait until you get a command prompt back. Could take some time. However, in all honesty, you DON'T need to wipe the whole drive. Just the boot sector. So... you can save yourself some time by pretting Ctrl-C after about a minute.
          • specialK16, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2No need to wipe, unless you want to delete (irrecoverably) your data. Just format the drive and you are good to go.
          • d3matt, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2@VinceNoir
            How about the first few kbytes? Should take less than a second... ( I do this quite often to clear partition tables. Faster than running fdisk)
    • rufusdog, on 03/26/2008, -17/+9Diskeeper is a good one for XP if you want to have it run automatically, after hours, or unobtrusively in the background. It cost$ however.
      • saynt, on 03/26/2008, -2/+23Read and consider before you install...
        http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86226

      • bitterbug, on 03/26/2008, -5/+5I dugg you up. I don't get why some useful responses get dugg down. In this case probably because the item in question costs money. But that's no reason to digg down a valid response.
        Especially when Disk Keeper has a good reputation. Would people digg down someone mentioning SpinRite if there was an article on drive recovery?
        • cwgannon, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Right. So you must have not read the comments above you, eh?
          • bitterbug, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Holy crap. Well, those posts were made *after* I posted, but I had no idea. I wonder if it's even the same app. Back around 2000/2001 it was the defragger of choice among the IT folks I knew. Let you move the windows pagefile to the front of the drive, stuff like that. And as far as I know was the work of one guy. The scientology aspect is just freaky.
      • GliTCH82, on 03/26/2008, -4/+3I don't really give a ***** if Diskeeper is run by scientologists, that product is rock solid and the fastest, most efficient online defragmenter I have ever used. I may not necessarily agree with the way they run their company but I'm not paying for that or for support, I'm paying for the software itself.

        Plus you can always pirate it.
        • madeingermany, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3You could also not even pirate it and just use other products that offer the same functionality and are free and don't support a cult.

          Sometimes I love my government :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskeeper#Controversy
          • GliTCH82, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1There aren't any other defragmenters out there that run continuously all the time in the background using idle resources.
    • robz0rz, on 03/26/2008, -3/+20You don't need to defrag in order to reformat :o) Just pop in a Linux live CD or your Windows install CD, they'll do the trick. If you really meant defragging though, I think you have enough options already from the other replies. Myself, I just use the standard windows defragging tool.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 03/26/2008, -5/+1I've had programs actually run SLOWER after defragging with the native XP ttool. JKDefrag, however, got my system going fast again. :-)
      • gungaroo22, on 03/26/2008, -7/+2Dugg for the cute smiley. ^_^
    • JimV, on 03/26/2008, -6/+12The Windows Defrag tool works pretty good.
      • TheZorch, on 03/26/2008, -0/+9Windows Defrag is basically a lite version of Disk Keeper. Use JKDefrag with the JKDefrag GUI frontend, its way better.
        • tempusrob, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6What's it do that a normal defragger won't? Are there benchmarks showing boot times (or other read-intensive activities) for normal defrag vs. JKDefrag?

          Please don't Digg me down for asking, Digg Hivemind, I'm just curious.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -3/+1It just works better for various reasons (algorithms etc). If boot times don't show it file operations probably would.
          • snowpatrol, on 03/26/2008, -0/+10Well, after all the proof you provided, who could argue with you....
          • tempusrob, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6Well, he did use the word "algorithms."
    • yournamehere, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2IOBit SmartDefrag for windows.. it's free and is just as good as Diskeeper (which was my favorite until SD showed up).
    • bliz, on 03/26/2008, -2/+1If what you want is to defrag and not reformat, you can try AusLogics Disk Defrag. It's free.
    • kingofpenguins, on 03/26/2008, -3/+1UltraDefrag, both Free and Open Source, using Microsoft's own defragmenting API.

      http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/
    • synwolf, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2AusLogics Disk Defrag is what I've been using recently, but it looks like there are quite a few more free or opensource options as noted above.
    • goffy59, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3Well you don't have to pay for it because you can download the crack. But diskeeper sucks, sucks up resources. Use JKDefrag! You can set it as your screen saver and defrag when your away. No need for ***** schedules and nonsense!
    • Sokkratez, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2I use O&O Defrag on a weekly basis. I have been trying Defraggler as new versions come out, because I'd rather use a free tool, plus I love CCleaner (same developer), but it is still too slow for my liking.
    • LargeTrout, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4I use PerfectDisk 2008. It's not free (but it's pretty cheap). It's slower than Diskeeper (which the Windows default defragger was modelled on), but it's far more thorough.
    • cassaffousth, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1jkDefrag
    • armondadgar, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0Disk Keeper, it is the ultimate disk defragmentation tool.
    • EminNew, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0Free, fast and simple
      http://www.auslogics.com/en/software/disk-defrag
    • zongamin, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Why do you need to defragment if you are reformatting?
  • grumpyrain, on 03/26/2008, -10/+512Because Linux isn't a file system.
    • jsd8cc, on 03/26/2008, -8/+103(for those who don't get it: Linux itself isn't a file system - ext3, XFS, etc. are file systems used by Linux, just as FAT and NTFS are the file systems used by Windows)
      • MioTheGreat, on 03/26/2008, -12/+2With SP1 of Vista, support for exFAT is also introduced. I don't now if you care or not, but it seems like a neat little filesystem for flash drives, and probably should be included on lists from now on.
      • identitymatrix, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7Also note that both operating systems can also use the filesystems that the other normally uses. For example I use ext2 with windows.
        • init100, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2Doesn't that trash the POSIX file permissions?
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6^No. And in good drivers new files and folders inherit parenting permissions.

          OP: Ext2 does not work as well in Windows as Linux in various ways, including but not limited to features and speed. Ext3 is also not directly supported; And if you shutdown your Linux system abnormally, You must reboot back in and shutdown properly before mounting in Windows. (Or else you can no longer use the journal to fix the file system, which would be bad.)
      • grumpyrain, on 03/26/2008, -0/+8Also, you can mount FAT32 and NTFS partitions under most distros. These partitions need just as much a defrag as they would under Windows. Equally, if Microsoft wanted, they could implement a file system similar to ext3 or Reiser if they chose. Personally, I don't believe it will matter. By the time that rolls out, most people will be using SSD based hard drives where fragmentation makes no difference.
        • dudettea, on 03/26/2008, -2/+0I still don't get it. I guess I'll get negative diggs for lack of understanding
          • grumpyrain, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4What don't you get?
            A file system is simply a way of arranging data on the disk. The kernel could not give a rats how the data is arranged, as long as when it asks it to return previously stored data, the file system can find it. In fact every version NT4, 2K, XP, 2003 and Vista all have a file system called NTFS, but these file systems are actually different. Neither Windows nor Linux are directly tied to a single file system.

            The next OS that Microsoft could potentially introduce a new file system would be 'Windows 7' (who knows, maybe WinFS may show its head again).

            The main reason fragmentation hurts performance is because of seek time. Seek time is the time it takes between telling a drive you want data and when the first bit arrives. On server spec SCSI RAIDs, you are looking somewhere around 4ms. On your desktop, double it. A typical seek time on a SSD is usually measured in under 100 nanoseconds because it doesn't have to move spinning disks and platters into the right place. By the time 7 would come out, SSDs would be pushing 200GB, and 100GB will be quite affordable. If new PCs are going to be shipping with SSDs by default, why would they invest specifically in designing a file system that does not fragment?
        • Yodacola, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I am sure SSD will go mainstream, but I am not sure when. I mean, how long did it take for the semiconductor to succeed the vacuum tube? Either way, a filesystem overhaul, like WinFS, will be good either way.
      • int19h, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1.
    • TheZorch, on 03/26/2008, -9/+6I heard the RaiaserFS is pretty good, despite the controversy over his murder trial.
      • m0tbaillie, on 03/26/2008, -3/+10Yea. ReiserFS is the default file system used by most versions of SuSE Linux (unless you specify otherwise) and it's pretty decent.
        • wattersm, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4No it's not. SuSE switched to ext3 a while ago.
          • m0tbaillie, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I stand corrected - I haven't used SuSE in like a year and a half. :P
      • popularwinner, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7Death is a complex process.
      • andycr512, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3Reiser3 is a good filesystem. Reiser4 is currently a terrible mess and you should stay as far away from it as you possibly can. Don't worry, though - if it's 4, it'll be clearly marked, and I'm not aware of any major distro that has it as the default Reiser version to format as.
    • sketec, on 03/26/2008, -3/+3You are my hero grumpy!
      • clearwaterlab, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3You set some pretty low goals for yourself
    • Altair8800, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4Because Linux is... http://i28.tinypic.com/andjbm.jpg
    • davotoula, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1I had to log in just to dig this comment up!
    • Skiessi, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1500th digg o/
      • grumpyrain, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1Actually you were 510th. 10 people think I am wrong ;)
  • Philluminati, on 03/26/2008, -17/+92Linux has a lot of cool tricks like this. You guys might also be interested in LVM (Logical Volume Management) where physical disks can be put into groups and the file system can be put over the top of the group rather than directly against the disk or partition. So if you had a 250GB hard disk and a 100GB Hard disk, in Windows, the biggest partition you can have is 250GB (the whole of the largest disk) where as in Linux you can add them to a "volume group" and then have the equivalent of one 350GB disk. You can also modify these groups on the fly while the machine is running and the files are being shared out on the network, so if you run out of disk space you can put another hard disk into your server and extend the size of the partition on the fly :-)
    • rjosal, on 03/26/2008, -2/+8I don't use fedora as much as other distros so I'm not as familiar with LVM as I could be. I do have it installed on other distros to read the logical volumes fedora made... but tell me, isn't it basically software raid? if so, does it act like striping or JBOD or what? and also, I have hardware raid controllers. Is there a benefit to using LVM even if all of my disks are already in a raid array?
      • mazerrackham, on 03/26/2008, -0/+13LVMs can do RAID-esque striping/mirroring/parity, but the core functional of an LVM is to pool disk resources and then carve out volumes to mount from that pool. If you only have a single RAID array presenting one LUN then there is no functional benefit to LVM, but when you add more LUNs it becomes useful. Imagine that you ran out of space on your array -- how would you fix it? Under an LVM you can add a second LUN (from another RAID array / SAN / whatever) and add it to the same disk pool as the first one, and now you can grow your existing filesystems onto that extra storage.
      • Hermmunster, on 03/26/2008, -1/+8If one drive dies do you loose all the information on all the drives in the LVM?
        • mazerrackham, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Depending on how the data is laid out -- you probably would, which is why you wouldn't want to span a volume across disks without either using redundancy in the underlying hardware, or the redundancy features of the LVM itself.
        • init100, on 03/26/2008, -3/+1Why not backup your data to an external USB drive anyway? Backups are pretty cheap insurances against disk failures.
        • AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4LOSE, you don't LOSE the data. Normally, LVM is a concatenation and not a stripe (But you can stripe if you wish). In that sense, you may lose the data that resided on the disk, however the file system will likely be screwed up. Never use RAID for anything other than specific performance needs or redundancy. It does not take the place of proper disaster recovery or backups.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2What the hell does Fedora have to do with LVM? LVM (Lvm2)is available on almost all distributions of Linux as well as on HPUX, AIX etc.
        • rjosal, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Yes I know, and I have it on several distributions, but fedora and red hat are the only ones I've used that use it by default.
    • stotty, on 03/26/2008, -23/+17"So if you had a 250GB hard disk and a 100GB Hard disk, in Windows, the biggest partition you can have is 250GB (the whole of the largest disk)". Not so, try looking up extended partitions.
      • c0nv1ct, on 03/26/2008, -0/+26Sorry, that has nothing to do with extended partitions. But one could use Dynamic Disks, which is similar to LVM on linux, to create a volume that spans across both drives to create a single 350gb volume. You could even do a 200GB software raid0 with dynamic disks with that setup, among other configurations.
        • silfiriel, on 03/26/2008, -6/+1but it does, LVM is equivalent to extending partitions in Windows, you can do it on the fly etc. even though diffrent hard disk, you could still extend the first hard disk with available space from the other. In vista you don't need Dynamic Disks, you can do it in Disk Management Console
          • GliTCH82, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1So what you're saying is under Vista you don't need to setup and initialize disks as Dynamic Disks in order to create some kind of volume striping?
          • OneAndOnlySnob, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6Sorry dude, extended partitions are just a way to get around a very low level and outdated limitation that only allows a disk to have 4 partitions. They make one big partition at the end and put the remaining partitions inside it.
          • spyrochaete, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3I think it's the term "extended partitions" that c0nv1ct is arguing. An extended partition is a partitioning term. You can make up to 4 primary partitions on a hard drive, or you can create more my designating an extended partition and making logical drives within it. Dynamic Disks is a Windows term, not a platform agnostic partitioning term, and that's the technology being discussed here.
    • oldhick, on 03/26/2008, -16/+33You just don't know how to use Windows my friend. All of this is possible and more! Also, there are always trade offs. I'm not saying one approach is right or one is wrong, but the linux file system wastes more space by providing room for file growth. Linux rocks, but fragmentation isn't necessarily a terrible thing.
      • kenobi, on 03/26/2008, -15/+12fragmentation and filesystems is bad. period.
        • HoratioHellpop, on 03/26/2008, -5/+10because it's great to use a PC without a filesystem, right Data?
          • AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3you can use raw block devices for things like databases. It does improve performance.
      • GliTCH82, on 03/26/2008, -7/+2You can reduce fragmentation on a Windows system "just like Linux" if you format a drive using a 64KB cluster size or larger, which will waste space if you have lots of small files.
        • shakin, on 03/26/2008, -0/+10That's not how Linux filesystems work at all. Ext3 tries to avoid fragmentation by placing files on the disk intelligently. I think ext3 has a 4KB cluster size by default, which is the same as NTFS. XFS uses delayed allocation and b+ trees to help it make more efficient allocation requests and avoid fragmentation.
      • OneAndOnlySnob, on 03/26/2008, -1/+8Wastes space? What the hell man. It uses the same amount of space. It just places the files more wisely.
        • jambarama, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5Well each file system has different overhead (unusable space) and ext3 (presumably what GP is referring to) has a higher overhead than many. However, the differences are mostly negligable, and NTFS has higher overhead than many other filesystems linux can use (notably reiser & xfs).

          GP is right, but it really doesn't matter.
          • shakin, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5Ext3 doesn't have a large overhead, but by default a percentage of partition space is reserved for the root user. I think the reserved space is 5% of the total partition space, so this can be quite large on large partitions. The reason for reserving space is so if the partition becomes full the root user can login and work with the system more easily than if he didn't have any hard drive space. This makes a lot of sense on a system partition, but for data partitions you can reduce or eliminate this reserved space with a formatting option.
      • andycr512, on 03/26/2008, -0/+12It doesn't waste space. Both can use up all the space if needed, but Linux pads the files more so they are less likely to be fragmented. If your disk gets filled to over the point of the "comfort zone" of 85%, it simply starts fragmenting just as Windows started doing the day you started using it. The only argument I can see for the Windows approach against the Linux approach is that the first files written in the Windows approach will be a little faster to access, but that advantage disappears as soon as you start using the disk heavily for about a day. The "wasted space" in Linux (padding area) will be used up if needed - it's not wasted - it's just kept for the file closest to it for as long as it can be to speed things up, but is used as soon as new space is exhausted.
      • dixta, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3"Don't know how to use Windows"

        Ohhhhh mercy :-) Tears. Rolling down my face.

        The best way to "use" windows is to wedge the CD under an unstable table to stop it from rocking.
        • HoratioHellpop, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1//The best way to "use" windows is to wedge the CD under an unstable table to stop it from rocking// ... And there are likely lots of unstable tables in your mom's basement, wherein you live, because you can't get a job in the real world because you loathe Windows.
    • kenobi, on 03/26/2008, -1/+33windows can do LVM kind of stuff, called dynamic disks, but is only supported in things like windows server 2003, xp pro, vista enterprise and ultimate. as where LVM is free and available to all linuxes :)
      • Hermmunster, on 03/26/2008, -5/+4With all the privacy violating things that come with the OS. In vista 47 programs that monitor, collect, and report data back to Microsoft. Or all the DRM crap. The WGA/WGN bull.

        I'd just rather keep my privacy. It is important to me.
        • HoratioHellpop, on 03/26/2008, -4/+1//In vista 47 programs that monitor, collect, and report data back to Microsoft. Or all the DRM crap. The WGA/WGN bull// All of which (actually much less than 47) you can disable. But you knew that.
        • Tehrooni, on 03/26/2008, -4/+3I guess if you want to watch pedo porn all day on your computer, then privacy is very important.
          As one of the Funding fathers once said, honest citizens got nothing to hide.....
          • AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4First, it is founding fathers, not funding. Secondly, which founding father said honest citizens have nothing to hide? That is totally contrary to the values they put forward. How about if I can not be proven to have done anything wrong, then I am free to do as I please. I am NOT a suspect based upon my being. Charge me or let me go.
          • Tehrooni, on 03/26/2008, -5/+2I know how to spell *founding* you moron. I meant FUNDING FATHERS as those who ***FUNDED*** the establishment of America. Not the liberal gang who stuck us with the defective constitution which is limiting our means to fight terrorism.
            Now, back to your case, you are NOT free to do as you please. Even the founding fathers didn't say that. You only have a few limited freedoms such as freedom to speak your mind and the right to an attorney.... as long as you are not infringing on other's rights. If you are trying to hide something, obviously you are doing stuff beyond your constitutional rights, in which case the government has the righjt to investigate you and charge you for your crimes. And FYI, pedo porn is ILLEGAL in America. Get used to it.


          • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5Tehrooni. You make me sad to exist on the same planet as you. I try not to read your comments, They just make me feel worse about my existence. I mean, come on, who the hell deserves to have to deal with your fud?
          • Tehrooni, on 03/26/2008, -6/+1nmnnotmyname : feeling is mutual you pedo
          • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4what? Calling all Linux users pedophiles will not solve anything, especially the problem that you are an utter and complete tool.
          • AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1***** (Tehrooni), The Constitution is NOT an enumeration of the people's rights. ANYbody who tells you otherwise is stupid or lying. The Constitution lays the groundwork of what the GOVERNMENT can do. Anything NOT stipulated in the Constitution is FORBIDDEN FROM THE GOVERNMENT and not the people.

            If you have nothing to hide, why not just strip naked and let us perform a cavity search to make sure you don't have anything.

            Let us search your computer to make sure you are not sharing thoughts we do not wish you to have.

            Let us take things from you because we do not like them.

            Is this the land you want to reside within?
    • c0nv1ct, on 03/26/2008, -3/+10Dynamic Disks is the windows equivalent of LVM. Same idea, spanned, striped, and mirrored volumes can be done, even striping+parity on windows server. I use LVM over raid on my linux machine and i agree its a great, but other than that, you are wrong about windows.
      • silfiriel, on 03/26/2008, -6/+1you don't need Dynamic Disks, you can do it for free with the Disk Management Console by extending partitions, with disk dspace from another hard disk
        • kyouteki, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5Dynamic Disks is done IN the Disk Management Console...you can't do it without it.
      • mjPayne, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4Can it do snapshots ?
        • init100, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2I was going to ask the same question. Moreover, does the Vista Previous Versions feature require dynamic disks, or can it be used on basic disks too?
    • kyouteki, on 03/26/2008, -1/+6Can you convert a non LVM partition/disk to LVM? For example, if I had a near-full 250GB ReiserFS and I wanted to add a 500GB drive, would there be a way (short of backing up and starting anew) to do that?
      • cawpin, on 03/26/2008, -5/+1LVM has nothing to do with that.
      • rbenech, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5No. (You have to start with LVM)
      • watersp, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5Probably your best bet would be to setup the 500GB drive as an LVM. Next, copy your stuff over from the 250GB to your new drive. Then add the 250GB drive to the LVM.

        Not as simple as you'd hoped, but at least you don't have to backup and start fresh.
        • kyouteki, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1That's an excellent idea. Thank you!
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2As stated, but to clear things up, LVM can exist with a single disk to single file system layout. However, you should make sure that /boot is on a non LVM partition (only needs about 100MB or so).
    • picsectionpleez, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Just what I need- more liability.
    • grazzeh, on 03/26/2008, -0/+0Also, you can cry when one of your drives die and your LVM doesnt boot. LVMS are for RAIDed devices.
    • Jawmht, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1That is like RAID with no redundency and Windows does this fine.
  • foxhaze, on 03/26/2008, -43/+19Allow me to answer this: Linux is awesome.
    • thomasprebble, on 03/26/2008, -8/+10I see the Windows fanboys are out in full force today!
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/26/2008, -8/+6I see the Linux "know nothing about Windows" fanboys are out in full force today.
        • spyrochaete, on 03/26/2008, -2/+7I see the Linux "post something vapid and irrelevant and cry about getting buried" fanboys are arguing with internet nerds for a change.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Actually, most of us do know something about Windows, which is why we're using Linux in the first place.
          However, the original post is pure stupidity... What a douche bag.
    • Tehrooni, on 03/26/2008, -5/+2Linux has improved a LOT since I last used it which was in 1999. If only they were where they are today 10 years ago, I'd be using it too. But in the mean time Windows has improved a LOT to the power of two, so now the distance between the two OS is even greater than it was 10 years ago. Alas, Linux remains a great TOY - and a free one at that! Hours and hours of command-line configuration fun to fill up your nights and weekends.... that is if unlike most of us, you got nothing better to do with your time. For the rest of us who use our computers to real work and entertainment, Windows has been a great blessing. Thank you Mr Gates!
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Toy? Talk about ***** hypocrisy, most peoples excuse for not leaving Windows is games. 'Mr.Gates' is a BUSINESS MAN. If I have to point out this one more time, so help me god I will flame you like no Digger (including you) has ever flamed before.

        That toy? Oh, Its powering more than half the websites you visit. Just thought you might want to know.
        • Tehrooni, on 03/26/2008, -4/+1That's the problem with you marginals. You think because Microsoft is running a successful business, then it must be bad! You boyz also think everybody in the business world has ganged up to sink this great Linux ship. Reality is of course very different. Here's a little reality check for you:
          Our greatest achievements have been business driven. This includes the lamp bulb, telephone, laser and of course computers and ESPECIALLY Operating Systems and software.
          Linux is a flop not because of some dark conspiracy, but because efforts are not centralized. Everybody is doing their "own" thing. It is also a flop because 99% of all the people working on it can't get real jobs in companies like Microsoft. These are industry's rejects, mostly marginal people, developping TOYS for marginal users.
          A small part of the Linux kernel is the old UNIX system which is still being used to run servers on websites. It has nothing to do with Linux as an OS for desktop computers.
          Bill Gates is a GREAT businessman and a visionnary who almost single handedly brought the computers to every home and school in America. We owe him big time.
          I repeat, Linux is only a TOY not to flame anyone, only because that's what it is. You can't do anything serious on a Linux based machine, even playing games! Unless of course, your favourite game is sending Chinese commands to the OS to configure yet another non-working component.
          • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Oh, I got it! I understand now. Microsoft is a /good/ company. They aren't trying to take down their competitors...

            OF COURSE YOU PAY NO ***** ATTENTION AGAIN, AS I MEANT THEY MAKE THEM SELF LOOK BETTER WITH MARKETING. Is that not, in fact, the meaning of marketing?

            You don't know ***** about ***** and i suggest you get your sorry ass off the internet before somebody else does it for you.
          • Tehrooni, on 03/26/2008, -3/+1@nmnnotmyname : I am glad you ran out of things to say. That's wasn't long at all! Shows your DEPTH of knowledge and commitment to Linux. As for getting me off the Internet, I have already passed your info to the authorities when you admitted to being a pedo. Good luck. Maybe they will let you use your Linux machine in prison.
          • nmnnotmyname, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2WTF is wrong with you? First off, I never said i was a pedo. Second off, That doesn't mean I'm a sex offender. I'm not a ***** retard, like you are. You can say you do anything - That doesn't mean anything. A threat is one thing, but this is totally retarded. Just get a life.
          • nmnnotmyname, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Alright, You know what? Your pushing it too far. I'm seriously tired of dealing with your *****. I don't want to hear or see anything of you again. Honestly, Do you not have a life? I'm ***** 15, And you reported me as a pedo. Nice going, except, you don't have my full name, my IP, my anything. Just an idiotic imaginary report lacking information. I never said i was a pedo, but if saying your a pedo is illegal, then I bet i could get Digg to act upon you for being the OP of countless flame wars. And then you bash Linux, bash it like you know it. You say you haven't used it since 1999 but apparently contradict yourself to prove a point. You assume since I've tested Linux on a 486 that its the only PC i use (When honestly, I never use that old PoS these days) You've almost topped your old argument about the image quality in stupidity. Yeah, maybe Linux has octagon shaped pixels, that certainly sounds more logical than your argument. I'm so ***** fed up with you. You know, All your going to do here is use the argument that I'm too young to understand. You know what, If you make that argument, Then fine. But you don't know me. I'm not your typical asshole drug-abusing hs-dropout teenager. You don't know anything about me, nor Linux, nor anything about Open Source developers. You think companies are the only thing holding up the US, I bet. Go support slavery somewhere else, this website is reserved for people from the year 2008, and only those smart enough to use its interface. I don't know who's been typing out your comments for you, but he does an awfully bad job. You know, all of those people you flame for fun, they may act like they are someone they aren't, but I will not cave in. I'm a C/C++ developer who supports the Open Source movement. I know more than you about technology I guarantee. You know what your problem is? Your stubborn. You don't absorb *****. About as useful as a brickwall. I'm beyond tired of this *****. Your messing with the wrong guy. What exactly is it that gives you the idea that your doing anything productive? No body would ever think your insane way. Your a very delusional and ***** up person. I've used every version of Windows since Windows 3.1 up to Vista. I liked XP. Your fine with supporting the corporations and Windows, but when it comes the Open Source movement and Linux what happens? I bet you'd support Open Source and Linux if it were in companies. Worse yet, you say Linux is a toy when those who know how to use it and read the manual once in a ***** while can do anything in less than a few minutes - Not to mention you ignore the fact its powering a majority of the known internet.

            Wake up. Open Source will not kill anyone. Bashing it is counterproductive, and it won't make anyone believe in your views any better. Oh, and you've made a complete ass out of yourself multiple times today. Seriously, GET A LIFE. I have an excuse for spending time on Digg and doing nothing. I hope you know your place in the workforce, because your at the bottom, and worse yet, You bash Linux off of no basis just to protect the corporations. I know your type of personality. You've managed to prove it. Now listen up, I may seem like I'm defending myself overly strongly, But I'm getting seriously ***** off about now and if you ever throw Linux fud, legal fud, or any other sort of fud, I will get right back on your case about it. I don't take *****, but I'm willing to add some when i throw it back at you if you push me far enough. END OF ***** DISCUSSION.
  • Majjoodi, on 03/26/2008, -79/+16Because there isn't much stuff that run on linux
    • czeman, on 03/26/2008, -8/+36Yet another digger that talks about something he has not taken the time to educate himself on. There are thousands of applications that run on Linux. Linux is a great replacement for Windows. I have several specialty programs (programming software for industrial control systems) on my Windows box that could even run on my Linux box using a program called wine. Now, add the number of Windows programs that will run under wine, and the list of programs that will run under Linux just grew even larger! So, Linux will actually run more programs than Windows.
      • LemmingJesus, on 03/26/2008, -12/+5Yet another Linux fan boy that can't take a joke. Laugh once in a while.
      • Myztry, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Cooperative Linux (http://www.colinux.org/) is actually quite good at running most Linux applications under Windows. You can install masses of software from the Ubuntu repository and it runs surprisingly well. Die hard Windows users should stop deluding themselves and get at least some basis for their claims.
        You can't install most of the OS related packaged, so you are still stuck with the Windows base, and all that entails like fragmented file systems and general poor design.
      • Jawoodyablowme, on 03/26/2008, -9/+2Oh yeah! can Linux run Microsoft Word, Excel, Power Point, Access?
        No, it can't. Open Office is no substitute.

        For anyone that finds this post offensive. You really really need to get a life.
        • VinceNoir, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2Heretic. I can't believe you would say something so absolutely and completely offensive. You will pay for your insubordination when you are judged at the end of your life. The mighty Jah will see to it. "Jawoodyablowme" is taking the name of my lord in vain.
        • andycr512, on 03/26/2008, -0/+11Yes, actually, you can run office in Linux.
      • ikarimaru, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Uhhh, what Industrial Control System programming software are YOU using? I would imagine running anything Rockwell Software related would be a nightmare. Not to mention the special drivers required for many of the network interfaces. They can't even get those working on Windows properly, and that's the only OS they support. I do Tech Support for Rockwell, and I can tell you that I would instantly burst into uncontrollable laughter if you said you were running the software through Wine. Not because I hate Linux (lord knows I love it), but because it would be the biggest headache on earth to remedy any problems.
    • Gorgamel, on 03/26/2008, -0/+17^^ Looks like you caught one
    • MasterThief117, on 03/26/2008, -2/+7...
    • Tinendo, on 03/26/2008, -2/+10LinuX? Microsoft wont allow that! Idiot.
      • vincentweber, on 03/27/2008, -1/+0Like MS is in the position to allow anything. MS is scared as *****. Why are they marketing so hard _against_ Linux? Because it is a threat.

        MS loses so many users to Apple and Linux at ever frowing rate.

        Get lost with your stupid braindead"Ooooh MS won't allow that I am so great you are not" peace of ***** attitude. Educate yourself!
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2You know, I don't understand why you bothered. Honestly, You couldn't hold onto your keyboard, You saw a Linux article, So you had to comment it with Ignorance. How about, Actually try it first (And I mean actually, not, 'I Installed it but I couldn't figure out how to use xxx so i destroyed it') and THEN talk about REAL reasons.
      • Tehrooni, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2Ok try this:
        I installed two different versions of it, and spent no less than 100 hours configuring different components such as the video card, wireless, webcam...... Log into Fedora and Ubuntu forums and search for my questions and the answers I got (nickname Tehrooni). Bottom line is that the Linux OS just can't deal woth a LOT of components out there. They have come up with many "scotch tape" solutions to get around these issues, but you fix one thing, you break two others. At the end, you realise the only way to run Linux on a machine is to customise your machine for the OS. But that's not what it's supposed to be!!! The OS is supposed to operate your machine, not the other way around! Funny thing is that the "community" thinks there is a conspiracy against Linux by the manufacturers. They don't stop and ask how come Microsoft dealt with all those issues 10 years ago and we haven't had to configure any thing since at least Windows XP!!!
        Linux is a toy. For serious computing, get an OS that can run your computer. That is the REAL REASON.

        • vincentweber, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2A toy? Linux runs on more hardware then Windows. It might not run on the latest -no wait- it runs on the latest and greatest graphic cards, RAM and CPU hardware around. Almost right after AMD shipped x86-64 CPU's Novell Linux supported it. And Windows? It took, what, 2-3 years? Linux runs on servers, desktops, ***** (google IBM Linux *****), cellphones, ovens, 50% of the worlds fastest supercomputers, laptops, tv's, toasters, radio's, portable music players, and the list goes on.

          You know how Windows supports hardware? It doesn't support anything. Instead Microsoft says: here's how to make a driver for XP/Vista and go make one. Yes... it supports absolutely _NOTHING_. You have to install it yourself or let Windows install some prepackaged driver. Linux (the kernel) _itself_ does support all kinds of hardware.
          • Tehrooni, on 03/26/2008, -3/+3Most users don't care if Linux can support their wrist watches, as long as it can support basic components like wireless, graphic card, webcam, etc. IT DOES NOT and there is usually no straight way to make these work under Linux. Windows on the other hand, has resolved these issues for at least 10 years now. So shut up please.
          • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2It supports all of those on my PC. You say the last time you used Linux was in 1999. It sure as hell shows.
          • Tehrooni, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2@nmnnotmyname - You said you were running your Linux on a 486. Didn't know they had a wireless card on those back then....
            As for me, I have a bunch of machines running linux as we speak. It's my job you idiot. And they ALL have some kind of problem... Only last week, I installed Ubuntu and Fedora on two different machines. My men were configuring the ***** for over a 100 hours. Still not fully working. It's a piece of crap. But of you're happy to roll in it, be my guest. You always get what you pay for....
          • nmnnotmyname, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1No, I don't normally run Linux on a 486. My current PC is 64-bit. And let me guess, your computers are all prebuilts. Prebuilt computers are generally built to run Windows, with proprietary extensions they made only available on Windows.
    • Tehrooni, on 03/26/2008, -4/+1"Because there isn't much stuff that run on linux"
      If that was the only problem..................
      You can't even get your computer to fully run on it!!!!
      Now Linux community is saying we must only buy linux compatible components to run Linux! The list of those compnents is VERY VERY short! Can you imagine if Microsoft had said something like that??? They'd be out of business today. Oh wait, I guess Linux was NEVER in business so they don't have to worry about t. BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW



      • hplasm, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3Aha. Now your head has exploded. Good. One less tit.
      • vincentweber, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1List is limited? Boy-oh-boy you must have wireless broadcom networking cards so you're ***** of... What? You have to buy Linux compatible hardware and Windows runs all? *cough*Vista*cough*. That's right.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Back in 1999.
      • jay019, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0Lol, dude, you suck at compooters!
  • praveenmarkandu, on 03/26/2008, -3/+82the degree of fragmentation in linux depends on what kind of filesystem is in use.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/26/2008, -6/+3It depends upon the file system DRIVER. Different FSDs can result in different levels of fragmentation. It depends on the allocation strategy used by the FSD.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4Usually this is true, I believe it is in this case. But very unlikely at least on Linux considering theres pretty much only one driver for any Linux filesystem. Versions may have something to do with it, but honestly, thats a whole different story.
    • init100, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3I wonder if the Linux fat and vfat implementations fragment the filesystems as bad as their Windows counterparts do.
    • Hangly, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6All filesystems fragment to some degree or another.
      • UNL1M1T3D, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5True, but with most Linux file systems the fragmentation doesn't hamper performance, which is what the article was about.
  • Tgg161, on 03/26/2008, -2/+22Even though I have no plans to switch to Linux, this is an excellent description of what fragmentation is and what defragmenting does.
  • Abbeygargoyle, on 03/26/2008, -6/+4Mirror?
    • JernejL, on 03/26/2008, -10/+1Got one in my bathroom if you are in such a hurry..
  • bassgoonist, on 03/26/2008, -1/+68Mirror: (Google cache) http://72.14.205.104/search?hs=sUq&hl=en&lr=&c2cof ...
  • Emaze, on 03/26/2008, -9/+5Mirror anyone? The site is down.
  • copperhead, on 03/26/2008, -6/+18Suspended.
  • Persian5Life, on 03/26/2008, -26/+7because Linux like the Ubuntu distribution was designed out of love for mankind while windows was designed for money.
    • daxsymbiont, on 03/26/2008, -3/+10out of love for mankind, and a lot of cursing to noobs in forums.
    • mrsteveman1, on 03/26/2008, -5/+5Yes capitalism is evil, please turn in your US citizenship and move to a non capitalist country.
      • GliTCH82, on 03/26/2008, -5/+3He's right, capitalism is evil, so I hope you never make a dollar in your life and spend the entirety of it driving piles of ***** for cars and standing in lines to get rations. But hey, at least you'll have Linux as the dominant OS.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3Missing the point - Its what you do.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -3/+4n00buntu
  • Harabeck, on 03/26/2008, -9/+4And the site is down due to over use of the server's cpu quota...
    • Amiga500, on 03/26/2008, -11/+2HA ha, here is why:

      Server: Apache/2.2.8 (Unix)
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7HA ha, no.

        Server side software has nothing to do with quota or hardware. The joke is not funny. Apache powers more websites than you could count up to in a month.
      • dixta, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2(you're an idiot.)
  • skylard, on 03/26/2008, -5/+23Talking about defragmenting it seems the site has been frag'd.
  • SpookyApplePie, on 03/26/2008, -38/+6I agree with Majjoodi - DIGG ME DOWN

    Because there isn't much stuff that runs on Linux
    • lamiaconfitor, on 03/26/2008, -22/+1no, linux doesn't run that much stuff. if you are an os, you need to ID the weakness of your platform. compensate for excel, and run direct x, Their strengths are GREAT, but their lack of user friendly UI/ability to process direct x9.0c make it weaker then morons on macs even.
    • joewill, on 03/26/2008, -2/+16What do you mean there isn't much stuff that runs on linux
      have you used linux before? if the answer is no, then dont open your mouth about it.
      • CedEx, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2He's talking games! Where are the Linux games?!
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3Any Quake, UT 2004, Almost all dos games are playable, Some windows only games run in Wine, WarZone 2100, FreeCiv, Xmoto, and many others. You need to know what to look for.
      • Jawoodyablowme, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3Dude, it's just an OS.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1The underlying issues are more along the lines of ignorance here. Never promote ignorance.
      • Amiga500, on 03/26/2008, -4/+2The answer is "Yes", we have used it and Linux was a severe disappointment as a desktop OS. But, if lying to yourself about why people think Linux is a steaming pile of ***** makes you feel better, well, good luck with that.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2Your birth was a severe disappointment. Stop throwing your FUD at us because your ***** off about your sorry ass and have a serious inability to create logical arguments.
        • hplasm, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2AmigaDOS. PFFT!!
    • bsmang, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1I wonder what a comparison would look like of how much stuff runs on Linux compared to the similar statistic for windows... With maybe Wine factored in, but not more complete virtual machines.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2WRONG.
      (Do you even deserve an elaboration on why?)
    • Pistolero2, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0Well it does run this Internet web page called Digg...
  • Nitrodist88, on 03/26/2008, -10/+3Is it because their computers spew out MySQL errors?
  • skektek, on 03/26/2008, -8/+82A better question is: why does Windows *still* fragment its files?
    • joewill, on 03/26/2008, -5/+10well you can prevent this, you have to install drivers for ext3 partion (the ones that dont fragment)
      then partion your hard drive so that window boots from ntfs partion and then just install all you programs and save all your files on the ext3 partion
      still has some problems when windows updates and such. but fragmentation will be much slower and defrag will be much quicker, becauses the drive is so much smaller.
      • bejayel, on 03/26/2008, -0/+9Have you ever tried the ext3 drivers for windows? It crashes every few seconds while accessing any ext3 disk, like HARD crashes. That was my experience with them at least.
        • NOFXY, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4i've been using it for almost a year (since the release of feisty fawn) and have never had a problem with it.
          • bejayel, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1It was probably jst my windows. My roomate restarted his computer the other day after the boot he had no more sound cards. We tried absolutely everything from new divers to new sound cards. Windows just said ***** you bejayel's roomate.
        • stoanhart, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Works fine for me on all my computers.
      • VinceNoir, on 03/26/2008, -1/+9Why you're being dug down I have no idea. But it's true folks, you can run the ext3 filesystem on Windows. Kind of like trying to put lipstick on a pig and be a pimp, but it's technically possible...
      • mjPayne, on 03/26/2008, -3/+0Don't kid yourself. Ext2/3 fragment as well, not as fast as NTFS but quite badly in some cases. Test case: make 100 MySQL tables and insert 1M records in each, sequentially. Shut down MySQL and copy the data files to another filesystem. Guaranteed under 2MB/s transfer rate for any mechanical drive - even 15K RPM ones.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/26/2008, -5/+3ALL file systems can be fragmented. All file system DRIVERS can create fragmentation.
      • PatrickBrown, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Not my file system: It places files of various lengths according to maximum efficiency possible. It may be of NP complexity, but damn it - it gets the job done eventually!
    • esc27, on 03/26/2008, -4/+13Because it originated as a single user OS when hard drive space was much more limited. NTFS is old by current standards, but the Microsoft developers haven't managed to develop a new system yet and won't (or can't due to licensing or technical issues) adopt an existing one. My understanding is that Microsoft doesn't have all the talented people it needs to support all the projects it would like and so projects like this don't get much support, especially when NTFS works well enough.
      • ralphthemagi, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2They did develop a new filesystem—WinFS. It got cut from Longhorn because it was, among other reasons, too resource intensive, due to its relational database nature. 4GB was kind of a minimum for adequate performance.
        • mooninite, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3WinFS wasn't a file system. It was a layer sitting on top of NTFS. *sigh*
          • ralphthemagi, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0It was a bit more than a layer that sat on top of NTFS. That's more and more what it became as they tried to work it into Longhorn.
        • elvisa, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2WinFS *was* intended to be a file system, all the way back to Windows NT4. But it got cut due to time and budget restraints, to be pushed back for Win2K. Ditto again, and again.

          In Vista they eventually gave up on the idea of a standalone file system, and went for the "layer on top of NTFS" option to simplify things. But even that go cut.

          It really begs the question: what is wrong with a company when it has more money and resources than any other tech company in history, yet it can't build software on time or on budget to a reasonable quality? Methinks Microsoft needs an internal shakedown, starting with their CEO down to their middle management. Their developers are willing and able, but are constantly stifled by stupid management decisions.
          • grimward, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1WinFS wasn't meant for the Vista OS at all, it was meant as an addon to organize metadata in general, it's not a new file system, but as MS realized that most client users wouldn't really have any use for WinFS, they opted to include it into the next MS SQL server instead of Vista as it made more sense using it there.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS
      • Jawmht, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Riiiight, I'm sure that the largest software company on Earth doesn't have enought talented people.

        Although, they made a new one default then people would clog up the support lines asking why the flash disk they just formated won't work on their Win98 machine that their workplace hasn't upgraded yet.
    • wattersm, on 03/26/2008, -4/+4It doesn't. The latest version of NTFS is pretty decent and has evolved a lot.
      • d3matt, on 03/26/2008, -1/+6I'm assuming you're talking about vista? Vista's NTFS implementation for regular use is not better than XP's. Download large and small files a lot then delete some. Repeat for about a week and your disk time will be slowwwwww.
        • YourMaster, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2No, he's talking about the latest version of NTFS. NTFS 3.0, to be specific.
  • ileftfark, on 03/26/2008, -30/+20Because Linux filesystems logically place files neatly in an order, and the Windows filesystem projectile vomits files like green pea soup?
    • charlescva, on 03/26/2008, -14/+17if you read the article it obviously shows that the ext file system randomly scatters files throughout the free space. There is no neat "order" to it. dugg down for being wrong.
    • svivian, on 03/26/2008, -1/+13Don't know why charlescva is being dugg down, he's absolutely right. RTFA, etc...
      It's actually Windows that "logically" places files neatly in order, leading to worse defragmentation.
  • Danikar, on 03/26/2008, -3/+6Mirror: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:g9XG9H7kmcIJ: ...
  • Danikar, on 03/26/2008, -3/+11Pretty interesting article. Really well explained.
    • steeeeve, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0I don't know. This explanation was with an almost empty harddrive and i do not see it work with an almost full one.
  • panicofficer, on 03/26/2008, -2/+14Strangely, I was just asking myself this yesterday. Great timing.... saved me the search.
  • jleq, on 03/26/2008, -17/+7Because most modern Linux distributions default to some kind of journaled filesystem (ext3, reiser). That's pretty much it.
    • tnoy, on 03/26/2008, -10/+1599% of Windows machines shipped in the past 5 years use a journaled filesystem. Whats your point?
      • yodasama, on 03/26/2008, -8/+5please tell me that was not a serious comment...
        • ulric, on 03/26/2008, -2/+8He means NTFS is a journaling file system, which it is http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_NTFS_journalin ...
        • bradleyland, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7Well, NTFS is a journaling filesystem, and we're in the year 2008, so he's suggesting that 99% of Windows machines sold since 2003 shipped with NTFS. I'd say that's pretty realistic.

          Or do you just not care to acknowledge the existence of NTFS (a damned good filesystem, btw)?

          I'm a Mac user (embarrassed of HFS+), but I still get pretty sick of listening to people compare modern Linux filesystems to FAT. I mean, seriously, the only reason FAT is even in use any more is because of interoperability needs for portable drives. I really wish MS would open up NTFS so we could have solid NTFS support in other operating systems, rather than the reverse engineering approach we have today.
      • GliTCH82, on 03/26/2008, -5/+1Proving once again, that the Linux guys don't know ***** when it comes to Windows. It's no wonder you switched to Linux.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3I probably know more about Windows than you do. Don't base all of us off of the typical Ubuntu user, they use it because its free.
          • GliTCH82, on 03/26/2008, -4/+1I guess I meant "some Linux guys", and what makes you think you know more about Windows than I do? Do you even know me? Assuming that you're more knowledgeable than someone without knowing the full extent of their knowledge is a pretty stupid thing to do.
          • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3No, I know a lot more than most Windows users who complain about Linux users. I was giving you a taste of your own medicine.
        • Tprnyc, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2I know more about windows then people who insult the intelligence of the typical ubuntu user.... I win??
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1@tpmyc: Not really. Go to the Ubuntu Forums, Talk to typical Ubuntu users. These people are very delusional about Linux...
    • caerwyn, on 03/26/2008, -0/+26Journalling has little to nothing to do with fragmentation. Avoiding fragmentation is a matter of space-selection, file moving and intelligent small-file and tail-packing algorithms.
    • joewill, on 03/26/2008, -1/+12a journaled file system does not mean files will not get fragmented
      ext2 is not journaled and it does not suffer from the problems of fragmentation
    • leszek, on 03/26/2008, -0/+10The fact that the filesystem doesn't need to defrag has nothing to do with the fact that the filesystem is a journaling filesystem or not.

      ext2 (which is ext3 without journaling) need as much defrag as ext3

      if you don't know what is journaling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journaling_file_syste ...
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/26/2008, -1/+8Journaling ain't got NOTHING to do with it...
  • woodrail, on 03/26/2008, -19/+11because Linux like the Ubuntu distribution was designed out of love for mankind while windows was designed for money.
    (to quote some guy)
    • Jawoodyablowme, on 03/26/2008, -10/+3Oh my god. Linux was built because a Finnish college kid couldn't afford UNIX. Others jumped on board to develop the software because they were: bored with their own lives, wanted to prove something, just wanted to help the kid, or whatever the excuse was. I seriously doubt anyone actually wrote code for "love of mankind" - unless you want to grasp at straws and say that wanting to help the kid as love of mankind.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3That's pretty close. Of course, You couldn't push it any further than that - You obviously have little to no understanding of the Open Source movement.
      • Hermmunster, on 03/26/2008, -1/+6LoL, that's moronic. It was developed because he wanted something. Whether he could afford it or not is moot since he was trying to build it himself. He did it in part because his professor said it couldn't be done.

        Now that it has grown it has taken on it's own cause. That cause provides relief from the need to spend exhorbitant amounts on an OS (businesses as well as individuals) and the fact that there are those that can do better, that can make something that others said was not possible. He rose to the challenge. Now we have a world wide community of developers and users that amounts to near 50 million people and that is growing rapidly.

        I can afford Windows. I can afford it on most of my 20+ computers at my small business. What I prefer to use is Linux because I know I'm not under the thumb of Microsoft. I don't have to live by their draconian rules. I can do with Linux what I want, when I want, as much as I want.

        People didn't start helping Linus because they wanted to help him as a kid. They wanted to help because they too wanted to get involved and create something.

        AND CREATE THEY DID! So much so that you hate them for doing it because you seem to be a Microsoft shill.
  • cerealjynx, on 03/26/2008, -17/+4My roomate just got a Macbook Pro and asked me how he goes about defragging. I taught him how to restart his laptop.
    • carl25, on 03/26/2008, -1/+25ok, you basically taught how to clear his ram. Not arrange blocks on his hard drive
    • mizike, on 03/26/2008, -11/+3you mentioned apple in a linux thread!?!?....prepare to be crucified.....
      • bejayel, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3His comment was completely wrong. He is being crucified cause he was wrong, not because he said something about apple.
    • yodasama, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4Let me guess, the "try, try again" approach?
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7That does nothing to the order of the blocks of files on his harddrive. Trying to promote Apple and then proving the stupidity of its userbase.
      -EPIC FAIL-

      Let the castration... BEGIN!
  • Shadowgamers, on 03/26/2008, -17/+12Oh NTFS, why hath thou forsaken meeeeee :'[
    • gypsi, on 03/26/2008, -5/+8NTFS does "okay" managing fragmentation
      • bejayel, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3No it doesnt. Why do i have to defrag every half a month then?
        • Shadowgamers, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2Because you're doing the equivalent of drilling thousands of holes in the ceiling and then expecting it to hold up the weight of a room stacked wall to wall with beer.
    • yodasama, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2Because NTFS and M$ hate you?
      • Shadowgamers, on 03/26/2008, -2/+1They probably hate me because I'm a pirate. Arrr the cruel fate of thee. :[
    • TH3W1R3D, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2@Shadow I thought your comment was pretty funny, dunno why your getting dugg down.
    • westyvw, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0Oh it warned you. Thats why its called NTFS: Nice Try at a File System.
      And so while I am dugg down, let me remind you that Microsoft itself wanted to get a better file system into Vista (WIN FS), but without anybody to steal it from to figure out how, they didnt.
  • awestra, on 03/26/2008, -28/+3Is this posting on a Linux box? It seems to be down, it must need some of that fancy Linux defragmenting!
    • yodasama, on 03/26/2008, -2/+6No, it probably just routed through some unstable Windows Server. ;-)
    • BCModder1, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5@awestra
      it's called the digg effect douche, linux web servers account for the bulk of all web based servers on the net asshat.

      lol @ yodasama
      windows servers are far more unstable and insecure for web server use then linux, at least imho anyway.*and all my knowledgable friends opinions*
  • mscalisi, on 03/26/2008, -9/+13According to this article, doesn't this mean that a regularly defragged FAT32 or NTFS volume will have higher performance than a Linux filesystem?
    • silfiriel, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4well, here's a smart question!
    • jimchou, on 03/26/2008, -3/+9No. Windows needs defragmentation because it creates defragmented files frequently; Linux does not usually create fragmented files, hence no need to defragment. If your disk gets so full that there's no choice but to fragment a file you're pretty much screwed either way.

      A freshly defragged Windows filesystem might even have lower performance than an old Linux system because Windows puts files near the start of the disk, Linux puts things near the middle, so seeks are closer together.

      BTW, if you really feel better doing defrag, there actually are defrag utilities for various Linux filesystems, but most people don't bother as they do very little to improve performance.
      • stix213, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4Although, most HDD's have significantly faster access times on the inner tracks than the outer ones, with the inner tracks usually mapped to the beginning of the drive's space. This would make cramming your data into the beginning of the disk advantageous from a performance perspective assuming the files were not fragmented, so I believe mscalisi is correct.
        • Frustian, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Wrong, it is faster on the outer tracks. Anyways, in Ballmer's perfect world NTFS is faster, but in real life files are not arranged on the HD in the exact order you access them in. Assuming no fragmentation ext3 and NTFS would do the same amount of seeking, but NTFS fragments all the time, so is almost always slower.
      • JQP123, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4"If your disk gets so full that there's no choice but to fragment a file you're pretty much screwed either way."

        Assume your ext3 drive is 50% full of small files; small being no more than 1% of the drive volume. Now, add a large file (say 10% of drive volume) to this drive and it is very likely that ext3 will have no choice but to fragment the file. You've only used 60% of your capacity but in your words, "you're pretty much screwed".

        • ApeInago, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1if it is a bunch of small files... it can just move them around to make space for the large one. There is space to cram the small ones in closer together.
        • JQP123, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1"if it is a bunch of small files... it can just move them around to make space for the large one."

          It could ... but it probably don't/won't for one reason ... performance. The time needed to analyze and re-organize on the fly would have a dramatic negative impact on performance.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2I've tested and NTFS nor FAT32 seem to be faster than Ext3 in Linux or Windows (with Ext2fsd for Ext3) when copying a group of ISOs.
      • nominalgeek, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0I suggest trying that copy using the XFS file system.
    • andycr512, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1It depends. Files at the beginning of the disk? Yes. Files other places? No, pretty much comparable. However, the advantage goes out the window as soon as you start using the disk for much of anything, so you would have to defrag -really- often, and even then the advantage would be marginal.
    • bj1989, on 03/26/2008, -7/+2Asking a question on digg: Dugg down means no.
      • JQP123, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4It probably means that the question raise issues that don't complement someone's pre-existing bias or agenda.
        • Hermmunster, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Or it's a representation of one's bias that got them dugg down.
          • JQP123, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1So asking a legitimate and valid question is biased in your view? You must be the one digging people down for asking.
    • Tprnyc, on 03/26/2008, -5/+1Not necessarily, a windows machine still has to deal with malware, anti-malware software, and bloated crapware.
    • gypsi, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1ext3 isn't the only file system. others will crush ntfs depending on usage metrics
  • tjfloyd24517, on 03/26/2008, -13/+8Because This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota
  • vibrokatana, on 03/26/2008, -9/+14The comment wars were pretty good. All the trolls spewing forth with the utter lack of proper grammar, spelling or knowledge on the matter.
    • Tprnyc, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1So, you say you need to have some technical knowledge and proper communication skills in order to communicate about technology?
  • ba5e, on 03/26/2008, -4/+17I like defragging in windows, its satisfying but I like more when I switch to my Ubuntu Install on the same machine and there is no defragging!
    • NOFXY, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5when i first installed ubuntu it was weird leaving the computer idle without defragging or scanning for viruses/malware.
  • provoko, on 03/26/2008, -13/+8In windows, if you have lots of free space and keep your download folder on a seperate partition, you'll never have to degrag windows. I can go months without degraging, a month will give me 1% fragmentation, maybe.
    • skeletorcares, on 03/26/2008, -11/+6don't talk sense on digg. these people don't understand it.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -2/+8Nor do you.

        You can get fragmentation on Windows quite easily with a near empty hard drive. Depends on the size of files and operations you are performing on the filesystem.
    • stix213, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3Obviously you aren't making too many modifications to files on the partition that reports 1% fragmentation, but the 1% fragmentation value is a bit misleading because that is still significant. 1% fragmentation could still mean that every file on the disk is split into a few scattered fragments. 100% fragmentation would mean that every block is non-contiguous, but 1% still means 1 out of 100 blocks are non-contiguous. If a file occupies 1,000 blocks then on average it could be still split into 10 fragments on different areas of the disk. That is still a significant performance hit.

      Don't let Winblows fool you!!!
  • vladkov, on 03/26/2008, -3/+18What I learned: don't use hostmonster.

    "Using static .html documents instead of painful .php scripts will practically eliminate CPU usage." Wow. Useful advice.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4lol!
    • VinceNoir, on 03/26/2008, -7/+3That because the Linux d00dz don't know how to really develop web pages. They stay away from things like Frontpage and it shows.
      • VinceNoir, on 03/26/2008, -2/+4Excuse me? Are you insane? Sure there are people who use Frontpage on Windows. There are also people use automatic instead of stick shift. It's not that one is better than the other, they're different. And frankly, I think you're all wet since the majority of web sites on the net are run on *nix based OSes running Apache. Even in the Windows world, any developer worth his salt uses Apache and not IIS. WYSIWYG might have worked for desktop publishing in the 80s and 90s, but it sure as hell doesn't work for modern web design. Get a brain, M'kay?
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2What is an HTML tag? Exactly what I thought......

        /fail
  • metalkiwi, on 03/26/2008, -2/+10Linux Defragmenter (crazy or not?)
    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=169551
  • windminstral, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3I've always wondered this. Good article.
    • tarmithius, on 03/26/2008, -2/+1how can you say it is a good article when the site is down?
  • skeletorcares, on 03/26/2008, -17/+2Linux server. Its down.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -4/+5Why do people do this?
      Really, Its not funny. After the 20,000th time, its still in fact, not funny to say this.
      • skeletorcares, on 03/26/2008, -6/+1wasn't meant to be funny, you stalk burier. Its mean to be true, but i can tell by your sophomoric comments you don't know what that means.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4Uh huh. I obviously over-estimated your intelligence - I thought you were trying to be whitty, turns out your just a dumbass.

          Feel free to point out any of my other comments, because now I think you're probably the one who's wrong.
      • Amiga500, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2Really, it is funny. Open wide, here comes a big spoonful of your own dignity! Yum.....
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4Open wide, here comes a big spoonful of your own *****!

          Its really funny, considering the OS you favor does not run as many servers as Linux. And the even funnier part? Websites that do usually run Apache anyways. Oh, wait, I'm considering you might know what apache is, and the odds of that are just so very low...
  • ThrstForKnwldge, on 03/26/2008, -7/+1Mirror http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:FtOZs_V_4DIJ: ...
  • TheZorch, on 03/26/2008, -2/+10SpookyApplePie and others like him are asshats. There are over 2000+ applications available for Linux, both older text-based applications and newer GUI applications for X Windows. If you need a piece of software for a specific purpose there is a Linux app which fits the bill every time.
    As for Defrag tools for Windoze. I use JKDefrag with the GUI Frontend application. Its really good. I can consolidate all the free space on my drive with it, something that Windows Disk Defragmentor can't do at all. The GUI Frontend also has a scheduler for unattended defrags.
  • Sneakernets, on 03/26/2008, -5/+8It depends on the Filesystem. EXT2 and EXT3 fragment, yes, but not so much as XFS, and ReiserFS is nearly indestructible. However, ReiserFS is never used anymore. The main developer is... in some hot water.

    EXT3 currently has no defragmenter, and sadly, no good File system checker either. FAT has many, however, and XFS is claimed to not need one, but I seriously doubt it defrags itself.
    • stian, on 03/26/2008, -0/+8Actually, XFS has a built in defragmenter..
      How to check for fragmentation:
      xfs_db -c frag -r /dev/sda0
      How to defrag:
      xfs_fsr -v /dev/sda0
      • tnoy, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4Which isnt XFS defragging itself.

        If a command needs to be typed to do it, then it doesnt to it itself. note: using a cron job to do the command still doesnt count.
    • groverblue, on 03/26/2008, -1/+14I still use ReiserFS.
      • VinceNoir, on 03/26/2008, -4/+2You proudly proclaim to use the filesystem OS choice of murderers online!? You are either a foolish or brave man.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -2/+6FOR ***** SAKE, ITS LINES OF ***** FREE ***** CODE. Trust me, The code itself can't be bloodstained, its not possible! The police won't come to your door because your using code from some guy who's ***** up in the head!
        • VinceNoir, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2@VinceNoir

          For what it's worth I still use ReiserFS too. The cops haven't come pounding my door down nor do I expect them to. I think the only concern that might exist regarding the code is that their developer is on an undetermined hiatus. The code is open and it can live on, but it would be without his guidance. He knew where he was going with it. If only Linus had accepted it into the mainstream kernel, then maybe it would be a lot more popular.

          That being said, it's a great filesystem. Performs very well for my needs which are audio and video production.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4Okay, WTF is with VinceNoir talking to himself.
          • VinceNoir, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2It was just getting dull in here so I went to the "other side" for a few minutes.
        • andycr512, on 03/26/2008, -0/+61. Alleged murderer.
          2. Brave? What's he going to do, use the filesystem on my hard drive to kill me remotely?
          3. You don't think anyone at Microsoft or Apple has ever murdered anyone?
        • nominalgeek, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1ReiserFS is a major step forward in file systems. We're not gonna just give that up because the author being accused of a crime. Other people will continue working on the file system, if he turns out guilty. But if you've been following up on the case and trial since the start of it all, it all seems a bit weird...
    • kyouteki, on 03/26/2008, -1/+9I use ReiserFS. What's the deal?
      • VinceNoir, on 03/26/2008, -8/+2Hans Reiser murdered his wife in cold blood and then tried to cover the whole thing up. You won't see that kind of thing happening when you run a real OS from a corporation. They have background checks on all their employees, so they know they aren't hiring murderers and degenerates. The people who don't get hired are left over to write open sores codez.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+51. ***** retard, using yellow journalism DOES NOT make you seem more intelligent, nor does it help prove your point.
          2. What the hell does it matter? By using Reiser's Open Sourced code which we didn't pay him for, we are somehow supporting him? So we shouldn't use it simply because .... why now?
          3. Well if someone at Microsoft was responsible for a murder, You won't be hearing about it.
          4. People writing Open Source code do not want jobs at Microsoft, unless it has to do with Open Source.
        • VinceNoir, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3@VinceNoir

          You really n