Re: Silly question, defrag

[Tracy R Reed <treed@ultraviolet.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1345 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 10:24:37PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
> There are ways in which Windows is better than Linux.  This is one.  To 
> think that Linux is better for not having defrag is wishful innacurate 
> thinking.  Such is life.  Send us $30k and defrag will go into v4.0 
> instead of 4.1.:)

I have to wonder about your motives here, Hans. You are the one who stands
to gain by capitalizing on newbie Unix/Linux users misunderstanding of
filesystems based on their experience with DOS and Windows and here you
are promoting defrag as a feature which puts your FS above others. They
have learned to compulsively defrag their disks once a week and you are
looking to feed their addiction. I think reiserfs is really great and a
defrag/repacker will be nice but the above strikes me as a bit strange.
How long has ext2 been around as the stock Linux filesystem?  More than
long enough for people to have realized whether a defragger would be
useful. Yet I can't think of a single distribution (of Linux or Unix in
general) that comes with a defragger. Stephen Tweedie wrote one for it but
nobody bothers to use it or even to include it with their distro.

Please don't perpetuate the idea that good filesystems have/need a
defragger.

-- 
Tracy Reed      http://www.ultraviolet.org
"She moves in mysterious ways"

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 240 bytes --]