Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 13 of 13
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11

    Quote Originally Posted by budman7
    This page might explain it a little better

    the fs ext3 need not be defragmented ,but why ext2 need ??why???

  2. #12
    Linux Guru budman7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Knee deep in Grand Rapids, Michigan
    In ext2, they didn't have the journaling perfected yet. So prolonged use would result in fragmentation.

    That was solved in ext3, and Reiserfs, jfs and xfs improved upon it.
    If you want to learn more about linux take a linux journey
    Use CODE tags when posting output of commands. Thank you.

  3. #13
    Linux Guru bigtomrodney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Not that it changes your point - but the ext2 didn't have any jouranlising. ext3 is ext3 with journal. In fact you can actually mount ext3 with ext2 drivers, and it will still work - except for the journal. Next time you mount under ext3 drivers it attempts to play catchup to some extent. The guy who developed it had a really interesting interview in LXF a while back.

    To my understanding ext2 even under tremendous pressure will on go to about 8% fragmentation, so that's 92% contiguous files.

    Prety impressive isn't it? ReiserFS works a litle bit different but mostly in that it was specifically developed as journal and ext3 was "just" an extension. Other useful systems are XFS which is actually designed with large file handling in mind.

  4. $spacer_open

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts