Return-Path: Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <160396-17165>; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 02:44:17 -0500 Received: from smtp4.nwnexus.com ([206.63.63.52]:3333 "EHLO smtp4.nwnexus.com" ident: "NO-IDENT-SERVICE[2]") by vger.rutgers.edu with ESMTP id <160598-17165>; Sat, 5 Dec 1998 22:33:50 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 22:07:38 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Smith To: Alan Cox cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: atomicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu Content-Length: 971 Lines: 33 On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, Alan Cox wrote: > With ext2fs you should never need a defragmenter Unless I've accidently run my portable (written in straight ANSI C...works on Unix, Windows, and Mac!) file system fragmenter on it. Basic algorithm to create a highly fragmented file on pretty much any file system: while file system not full create random small files delete one of them open target file for writing while target file not fully written write until error delete one of the small files at random close target file delete all of the small random files that remain Are there any file systems around that will manage to resist fragmentation if subjected to that? (No, I'm not insane. I wrote a fragmenter so I could test a Mac background defragmenter I wrote). --Tim Smith - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/