Message-ID: <abcc1ec6-a1d6-28a2-d0f5-29baac0722b8@sandeen.net>
Date:   Thu, 16 Feb 2023 13:56:51 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.2
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
References: <1620c46d-efcf-aca6-341b-083ef593c612@thelounge.net>
 <e21a53a9-10c5-a9da-02a6-338a78688c11@sandeen.net>
 <95b1df7e-3eb9-484c-d655-c42501ce7429@thelounge.net>
From:   Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Subject: Re: e4defrag don't work really well
In-Reply-To: <95b1df7e-3eb9-484c-d655-c42501ce7429@thelounge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/16/23 12:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 16.02.23 um 17:50 schrieb Eric Sandeen:
>> On 2/12/23 12:14 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
>>> what's wrong with e4defrag that it pretends it reduced th efragments of a file to 1 while in the next "e4defrag -c" (why does that only list 5 files at all) the same file is listed again with the same old frag count?
>>
>> You might want to examine the actual allocation before and after with "filefrag -v"
>> which could offer some clues to whether anything was modified by e4defrag.
>>
>> (I would also suggest that there is no need to defragment a 3-extent 2 megabyte
>> file, in general.)
> 
> it's not a question if it's needed
> 
> the point is it pretends "Success: [1/1]" but a following "e4defrag -c" still says "now/best 3/1"

I understand. It seems that your irritation at my parenthetical caused you
to skip over the request for more information from filefrag, though.

-Eric