Knoppix/Debian File System Questions...

Ok, this may be a simple question, but, I have never thought about this, until, I remembered my days back in DOS, and Windows Operating System thinking...

When you install Knoppix to the hard drive, you have three choices: Ext2, Ext3, and the Reiser [sp] File Systems.

From what I heard, and was told, within this Forum, best options were Ext3, and Reiser. You shouldn't use Ext2, because it doesn't contain "journaled" capability - which, is supposed to help, in case of a system crash, the file system can better "regain" lost data from these File Systems.

But, thinking back to my "previous" OS days, does any Linux OS File System contain the capability to "defragment" the data as well??? This was a horrible under-sight by M$, not to be able to handle this "on-the-fly", and after a few weeks, let alone a few days, your data was "pot-holed" all over your hard drive, thus M$ released, in many of what M$ does, an emergency addition of a defragmenter program, to correct this under-sight.

Does Debian, or Knoppix, already handle this under-sight, is it a concern in this Operating System, or is it still a concern, just need a apt-get to have this issue not a problem???

I want my Knoppix/Debian install to run for years, and years, and with the stability of Linux, capable of running continuously for days, and even weeks, on end - this could be an issue of anything should happen, unforeseen, to the hard drive.

Again, this may be a concern in the Windows World, is it also a concern in the Linux World, or is this just another thing that Linux does better, than in that "other" OS???

Thanks for any information on this concern,
Cuddles

Linux does it better! :wink:

I've always been told that the nature of Linux (indeed, of Unix) filesystems makes them less likely to fragment. They're actually a very different design to the M$ ones.

You'll find that every 30 or so reboots, Linux does an fsck on the filesystem. Normally it runs without a hitch, but sometimes you'll have to run it manually. This will fix the tiny amount of fragmentation that there is. FWIW, I've seen Windows filesystems with 50% fragmentation. I've not seen a *nix one with more than 0.9% and less than 0.5% is common. In short, your filesystem would probably outlive your hard drive (were that possible!) by a very long time.

So, Fingers99,

Fsck does the defragmenting, if it needs it, then? I have seen the fsck messages, during boot, and it stating that: 30 mounts of /hdX have occured - forced fsck... and then it takes about 5 minutes to complete... Is fsck doing a form of defragmenting during a file check as well, during this time?

If that is the case - wooohooo for Linux :!: -=- In Windoes you can schedule a defragment, as well as the scandisk routines, to run on boot, in specific days, weeks, or even something like "every # days", but this beats the scheduler, anyday. PLUS - In Windows you HAD to do these things, the file system always tended to scramble files all over the place, by default - If what you say is correct, Linux/Unix has the better "file system" if it tends to make unfragmented files in its file structure.

Linux/Unix -=- 2
Windows -=- 0

Cuddles
[it never ceases to amaze me, how the decision to move to Knoppix/Debian, has turned out to be the best decision I ever made :!:]

real filesystems don't fragment.
The whole fragementation is a artifact of FAT which isn't really a proper filesystem.

The fragmentation you see is dynamic, in effect its continually being fixed/shuffled.

When you fsck, its becuase it checks the filesystem for problems.
You set this yourself in the /etc/fstab.

When you mount a filesystemits noted in /etc/mnttab
If you power off without unmounting then it misplaces some files and fsck tries to reorganise them.

With a journaled filesystem this latest information is kept in a journal thus facilitating the reindexing of the file.

The number of reboots (atually remounts) to force a fsck is set in the /etc/fstab

That is SOOOOO COOL :!:

I knew - a little - of the history of FAT, and when I learned it, of course, the subject of fragmenting had to be mentioned, as well. I guess this is the same as the "Black Hole" that needs to reside between 640k and 1 meg in memory maps - because "good ol' M$" - in its "infinate" wisdom, thought that (1) no one would ever go above 1 meg, and so the OS always sets the hole in memory for system/ROM/and such, which was only "recently" (in computer history terms) openned up to be used as "high memory" loading. And (2) M$'s OS's had to have "something" that was consistant in any computer, with any hardware, and with any amount of memory. (wonder if any of the new Win OS's ever got around the "hole" in memory yet?)

...Sometimes, the more I think about it, I am astonished that M$ had gotten as big as it has, with all these issues (stuck in their OS). I guess when they (M$) started going more toward the NTFS structure, they got away from a lot of the "baggage" that FAT came with. BUT, IMHO, anything that comes out of M$, as far as a OS is concerned, has to either have a blue screen, unknown and ramdom errors, unexplained lock-ups, crashes, or evaporating memory and resources. But, thats from my many years of having to deal with it, and accept its failts for using, and choosing it, in the first place. (my bad)

Thanks to you both for the enlightenment on the Linux innerds (yesh, that has to be misspelled)
Cuddles

yesh thatz bodly misspooled!!! :D

DOH: See my post on filesystems/partitions etc... for how much crap we carried forward from dos.

secondary partitions.... 1024 cyl limit.

The real pronblem MS has with Linux is nothing to do with anything except the more you learn what a real OS should be the more MS looks like a badly designed kids toy.....

Do you know some people are so MS'IFIED that they won't use linux becuase its insecure, doesn't have a defragger and no virus checker!!!

strangly this is HOW MS has got away with it for so long!!!

LOL GoWater :!:

Hmmm, let me see, insecure, Linux, yeah, sure, when PIGS FLY...
No Defragmenter, Linux, well, let me see here, redundant, and ignorant, to have to run something that isn't needed if your OS does its OWN job...
And lastly, Virus Checker, in Linux, you can get one, but considering the target for any virus, (generalized statement here) is a Win/DOS OS (mostly) - it is also redundant and ignorant to REQUIRE Linux to have a virus program, then.

Microsoft is mostly just scared that people are finding out what "skeltons" that Microsoft has in their closets (OS's)

Shesh, the only target I could see M$ going after is the Shell Out need in Linux - but considering the "updating" used in Linux, and the ability to get almost "any" software/package from this "scary/bad ol' Shell Out process", it is well worth being fought against.

Like I said in another post: When I ran Windows, I had to keep track of how long my OS was running, because I had to reboot (to reclaim resources, or "fix" something that got mucked up, etc...), and in Linux, I want something to keep track of how long the OS has been running, not to keep track of when I should reboot, but to ponder on how long it has run WITHOUT requireing a reboot.

Linux, by far, is more stable, secure, and easier to use, than anything M$ can "dream" up, or steal.

But, again, thats in my humble opionon,
Cuddles

Yep, thats just about it cuddles....

However its a bit like blaming the press for showing <insert distasteful topic here>

In England most of the trash papers have a 'page 3' (boobs)
You can criticise the press all you like but in the end they just sell what people want to buy!!!

The same companies often own a broadsheet but they probably sell 1 copy for every 10 in the trash one with 50% dedicated to football scores!!

Its a simple supply and demand situation and it can equally be applied to the TV networks etc. Do MS have skeletons in the closets...of course but the av joe doesn't care!!! Hence we have supremely sucessful marketing stratgey....
allied with which is MS has copied another supremely sucessful business strategy.....
When supply exceeds demand manufacture demand.....
To do this they copied street corner dealers....

Give it away, free if you have to. Make everything easy to get into and almost impossible to quit!

This describes almost every MS product.... (well i can't think of one it doesn't)
Frontpage....yeah great so long as you don't want to ever use anything else.

Word, yeah we all have a choice if we don't mind loosing customers whio want WordXX format!

Access ....whoooah .... better not to even start that one!

YIKES :!:

Not ACCESS - OMG - they did a number on that one...

I was a Visual Basic Database Programmer, and before, Access97 I like to call it, it ran ODBC, standard, and eveyone could read/write, and you could run a Visual Basic "front-end" for it, without scrambling the database. THEN, along comes ACCESS2000 - yesh. New structure, and if you didn't use the right ADO data control in your Visual Basic program, you either couldn't read it, or you scrambled it. Worse yet, if you happened to have Office2000, which had Access2000, and had any Access97 databases, Access2000 refused to use it unless you "updated" the complete database file up to Access2000, which, locked out ODBC programs from accessing the database. One more bad thing was, after you "updated" the database to Access2000, and wanted to "downgrade" the database back to Access97, it never seemed to work the same way again.

Yes, please, lets not talk about Access... (this whole fiasco cost me a nice penny in trying to update all my VB "front-end" programs to a feverish rate of people "updating" my databases to Access2000 - this whole problem was close to comparision to the "scare" of when we hit the new millinium, and all date dependant programs would start thinking in 1900 dates.)

Got to admit one thing though, since the companies were updating my databases on their own, I could recoup the service charges to get their software updated to them messing them up. :D Ahhh, if it wasn't for Microsoft, where would all the program developers do for extra income, not to mention all the system tech's. [hehehehe giggle]

Cuddles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuddles

I guess this is the same as the "Black Hole" that needs to reside between 640k and 1 meg in memory maps - because "good ol' M$" - in its "infinate" wisdom, thought that (1) no one would ever go above 1 meg, and so the OS always sets the hole in memory for system/ROM/and such, which was only "recently" (in computer history terms) openned up to be used as "high memory" loading. And (2) M$'s OS's had to have "something" that was consistant in any computer, with any hardware, and with any amount of memory. (wonder if any of the new Win OS's ever got around the "hole" in memory yet?)

---

No you have got Intel to thank for that one MS had nothing to do with it and it is still there to this day in any system you buy that is based on x86 architecture which is pretty much any personal PC sold. Just look at you boot messages from the BIOS you will see what I mean there is still the extended memory above that registered with the system.

Quote:

---

...Sometimes, the more I think about it, I am astonished that M$ had gotten as big as it has, with all these issues (stuck in their OS). I guess when they (M$) started going more toward the NTFS structure, they got away from a lot of the "baggage" that FAT came with.

---

Not suprising at all when you consider the illegal business practices they have employed all these years and finally have been convicted of with little tangible result unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Thanks to you both for the enlightenment on the Linux innerds (yesh, that has to be misspelled)
Cuddles

---

That would be innards and since you run linux and have the program already installed you can:

Code:

---

>$ dict innerds
No definitions found for "innerds", perhaps you mean:
gcide:  innards
wn:  innards
moby-thesaurus:  innards

---

Or if you upgrade to KDE 3.2 you can have the spell checking on the fly when typing into most any dialogs or windows plus a whole lot of other goodies. Works for acronyms like YMMV if you have the proper dictionaries installed as well.

I stand corrected stephen .....
However lets lay the blame fairly....
LIM = Lotus, Intel, Microsoft

This is what became the 1MB limit... so we named the last two but Lotus is no longer lotus, its IBM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gowator

I stand corrected stephen .....
However lets lay the blame fairly....
LIM = Lotus, Intel, Microsoft

This is what became the 1MB limit... so we named the last two but Lotus is no longer lotus, its IBM.

---

I do not see how you can every blame anything thing on Lotus. They got f**'d over just as bad as anybody else by MS I remember back in the day the popular saying was "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run" and MS has kept up that business practice to this day. Just look at what happend to Word Perfect, Netscape and Novell among others were just lucky old Billy boy was too busy with his grand design to discount the internet as a threat until it was too late for the normal embrace, extend and destroy although that's still not stopped them from trying hard to do it. And while you have brought up IBM I don't trust them as far as you can throw them either I still remember the scummy things they tried to do back then as well, just because their some Johnny come lately claiming to be our friend well I just don't buy it like some in Open Source seem to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen

And while you have brought up IBM I don't trust them as far as you can throw them either I still remember the scummy things they tried to do back then as well, just because their some Johnny come lately claiming to be our friend well I just don't buy it like some in Open Source seem to do.

---

Well I suppose only time will tell, but in the mean time they are certainly paying a lot of folks to do kernel hacking and we are all reaping the benifits since (I believe) Linus is accepting a lot of their submissions. I know that IBM has been just as bad as MS in the past, but there has been a lot of turn over since those days and it appears that at least some of them "get it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aay

Well I suppose only time will tell, but in the mean time they are certainly paying a lot of folks to do kernel hacking and we are all reaping the benifits since (I believe) Linus is accepting a lot of their submissions. I know that IBM has been just as bad as MS in the past, but there has been a lot of turn over since those days and it appears that at least some of them "get it."

---

It is to their benefit as well they use the efforts of thousands of unpaid workers to build their products upon while making money off it, all at the same time getting to stick the knife in MS and weaken major competition. When push comes to shove it will be IBM's bottom line they think about not us and if we are of no further use they will move on to the next thing to make money at. As to their submissions I would be curious to see a breakdown as to exactly what they are targeted at, their own products or code that really can be of use to everyone. But as you say only time will tell how it is going to work out maybe decency will win out over the corporate bean counters for a change, either way I'll take every cent they and all the others are spending on it after all you can't take the code back once it has been released anyways.

All I can say is, whoever works on, and contributes to, Knoppix/Debian/Red Hat/Mandrake/Linux, and the whole Open Source theory, is, Thank You. I think the whole project is revolutionary, likened to the original concept of "Shareware" (try it before you buy it).

Shareware allowed people with tallent, and a vision, to "show their wares", and other people the chance to "see what it does", without the fear of buying something that turned out to be only "ShelfWare". In the whole Open Source realm, it only takes that "Shareware" priciple to newer heights. It allows people with tallent, vision, and a new way of thinking, to put that into something that "everyone" can benefit from. It allows people to see more of the "best of the best" people have to offer, and take the whole project to places that "money hungry" companines, could never take "us". I applaud the whole concept of Open Source, and the backers, and the people who work on something that is given freely to the mass. This OS is a tribute to the tallent in the world, and a shinning example of "what people can do", if they aren't trying to keep track of the money they can make at doing it.

If we want to "come down" on anyone, who does anything for this Open Source, I think we can "overlook" their past. If IBM is donating time, and resources, to this project, or if MS wants to contribute, or Apple, or Intel, or any other "company", they should be applauded for it. Even if they "may" have alterior motives in the process, the fact that they would "stand aside" of making the money on something, and just work on a project that contributes to the "greater" outcome of Open Source, they have my congratulations for doing it.

Maybe what we are seeing here is, a return to the starting point, for many of these "companies". IBM never wanted to get involved with the PC market, they were rather content with their "large" market in the Main-Frame arena. MS, considering they started in a small hotel room, and even Apple, starting out in someone's garage, we may be seeing a ruturn to that old-in-days time. Even Xerox, which was happy to be in the "market" of copiers, etc..., even "overlooked" the possiblity of this thing, when they were shown the "prototype" from Steve Jobs. What we may be seeing here, and now, is a full circle, of history. I used to think, back in, say, the 80's, if all of the companies that were developing products, and resources, for the Personal Computer, would "pool their resources" together, work on "something" together, we, as a market, would get something more impressive than we had ever seen before. I think the Open Source is that "pooling".

If you take the brightest, the most tallented, the people with a vision, and the power to create, without the concern for "how much money can I make doing it?" stuff, you can't help but get something impressive from it. I think Unix, and Linux, and all of its many "flavors" are a tribute to that. I think, if we want to view this, in another form, we can find a similar thinking. I relay race, compared to a single race. If one is going to compete in a single running race, you only have so much energy to expell, until you become weak from the time. Whereas, you take a relay race, of tallented people, and as one becomes weak, another takes the batton, and continues the race from there. You take this thinking of a relay race, to the Open Source, and the race can go on, almost indefinately, and not even retain its speed, but include endurance as well.

I would hope that "all" who are involved in the whole Open Source "project" are not in it for "the money", or to "gain control" of something, only to smother it at some future time. I hope these people are "truely" working on the project to see, "just how far can we go", and what can come from it. I think the technological advancements will be mind boggling, only likened to when I "first" saw an Amiga system. Groundbreaking!

This kind of thinking was very popular back in the old-in-days, when you lived in a small community, woth others who had tallent for something. We have strayed away from that, we have become a society of "money hungry" people. In the days of old, we had the barter system. No one person had to do "everything". One would produce crops, others would produce metal work, and others would produce "home goods", etc... And the trade would make it prosper. One would "bring" their tallent to others who didn't, or couldn't, have that tallent, and "everyone" would benefit from it. Open Source, I think, is a form of that. It is revolutionary, and still a "common" thing, in a new way. As someone said: "bean counters", if you take the "bottom line", and remove the fact we would "normally" consider this to mean money, replace it with tallent, and resources, I think Open Source has a VERY impressive, and strong, bottom line to it.

Maybe, Mr. Gates, with all his money, far too much for one person to EVER spend, has seen that this has gotten him nowhere. He has made "advancements" in the future of "computing", but that this has been a "single" vision, a single persons contribution to this advancement. Maybe, (conjecture here), he has seen that, by contributing to the "whole", he can make even more "advancements" to the computing world. Possibly, even IBM, or Apple, or Intel, or whoever, sees that a "one person" thinking can get "us" only so far. That by, only "combining" these resources, can we all "go to the next level" in computers. If we look to the technology, and not the monitary, can we progress to a higher. (this could also be a "last ditch" effort to ensure they will be gained access to the here-after, and the gates of Heaven will let them in, who knows. I hate to think that these people "finally" got religion, and are only now, looking to what their past causes in their future, but maybe.)

I think a persons actions, speak louder than words, and a persons past, reflects a persons future. But, when someone does a "good thing", it should account for something, it should exonerate them of previous "bad things". Quite possible this is what we are seeing here. MS is still doing the Windows thing, they continue to "make" money at that, and IBM still is making money dealing with old main-frames, like the 370, they still have companies that "refuse" to get rid of them. I, for one, can not see a BIG corporation as anything, other than something that is looking to only increase their monitary, or technology, strong-hold, but, this could be a new era, and a time that these large companies may be seeing "something" that is more than a simple way to increase these strong-holds. Possibly the "Open Source Bug", has bitten them, and opened their eyes to a "bigger" picture? Or, this all could be a rouse to gain more for themseleves? But, I would like to think that this is all for the "better", and heck, maybe we can all benefit from it, even if they are only doing it to simply get their hands into a piece of the pie, and to take the whole thing afterwords.

When a person has seen as much as a "seasoned" computer person has, in all the years, you can reflect back, to all the good, and all the bad, things that have come and gone. You can easily "see" what was "wow!", and what was just a "fizzle". I think, computers have come a long way, and I know, it has a lot more future than what it currently is at. Perhaps maybe MS is only interested in Linux as a way to "incorporate" it into their own product? Maybe, or maybe they are truely interested in seeing the "potential" of it, and possibly only interested in ensuring they are a part of it, if it does succeed, who knows? Heck, I would think any company, that has their eyes on the future, would want to be a part of something that "takes off", or becomes the newest thing since "sliced bread", nothing wrong with that. As long as the benefit doesn't get smashed at the end. This could all be good, for everyone. Maybe, we might see a Microsoft/Linux OS in the future, would that be really that bad? I, for one, wouldn't care. I have already said this countless times before: I would BUY Knoppix, I would BUY Linux, it is by far, the best OS that I have ever run, and if "purchasing" it is not an option, then supporting it, by financial means, or by contributions, is a valid return on what it is, and its value. Whereas, I have bought many OS's from Microsoft, and have yet to be impressed with them enough to validate the purchased price. If Microsoft did "market" Linux, or Knoppix, I would buy it. Gladly! Just as long as what Linux, and Knoppix, has, doesn't end up like what Microsoft currently is selling. I also don't, and wouldn't, like to see Linux end up the same as the Do-Do, it would simply be a waste of tallent.

I was being very serious in this reply/post, and thus, if you noted, I never slandered Microsoft's name once. I either used the proper acronym, or spelled it out properly. I never once used any of my "normal" ways of stating them, like M$, or Windoze, or WinSh*t, or whatever. I think MS has made many "contributions" to the world of Personal Computers, and that should be given credit for, seriously. I also think that a lot of what MS sells, as far as their OS's, is a bunch of cr@p. Having Debian/Knoppix, I would never be caught DEAD in a computer store BUYING a MS OS in my life, ever again. But, if Microsoft ever gained "control" of Linux, and didn't make it as cr@ppy as their own OS's, I would swallow my prejudices, and proudly purchase another MS Operating System.

IMHO, the war has begun. Microsoft vs Linux, to the death. But, I can honestly say, it isn't a fair war. Linux has all the newest killing technology, whereas, Microsoft is using pea-shooters, and cardboard sheilds. As more people "flock" to Linux, I think Microsft is realizing this, as well. Golliath is "seeing" just where their future may be, and they don't want to go the way of the Do-Do either. Justifiable, and shows that, even a large corporation, built on out-dated technology, may require some serious "re-vamping" - kind of the same as when they went with NT - sometimes the baby NEEDS to be thrown out with the water.

My last words, and sorry, this reply/post, has turned out to be far longer than I had anticipated, I am sorry... Hopefully, Microsoft, and IBM, and any other "company" that is "getting on board" with Linux development, is solely interested in "how far this whole thing can go", and "where can we go with it" -=- To the future, I hope I see Linux a part of it, when we get there.

Cuddles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aay

I know that IBM has been just as bad as MS in the past, but there has been a lot of turn over since those days and it appears that at least some of them "get it."

---

Well I should rephrase this perhaps. I suspect the coders get it. To be sure, the higher ups are looking at linux in terms of their self interest. I'm not so sure this is a bad thing though, even if their motive is completely selfish, as long as they abide by the rules of the GPL. So far they have shown themselves to be good citizens. IBM will prove a lot of its worth in how it deals with the scumbags over at SCO. I'm so glad that they haven't caved into SCO and just paid them off. I'm hoping that when IBM gets through with SCO it will be a long time before someone tries this sort of stunt again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aay

I know that IBM has been just as bad as MS in the past, but there has been a lot of turn over since those days and it appears that at least some of them "get it."

---

Well I should rephrase this perhaps. I suspect the coders get it. To be sure, the higher ups are looking at linux in terms of their self interest. I'm not so sure this is a bad thing though, even if their motive is completely selfish, as long as they abide by the rules of the GPL. So far they have shown themselves to be good citizens. IBM will prove a lot of its worth in how it deals with the scumbags over at SCO. I'm so glad that they haven't caved into SCO and just paid them off. I'm hoping that when IBM gets through with SCO it will be a long time before someone tries this sort of stunt again.

---

I agree the coders most likely get it, I do find it rather ironic that it ends up being IBM that gets to fight the battle for the GPL and is going to squash SCO like the little bug that they are. For what they have done so far in the last few years looks like a good start however one thing that always sticks in my mind when I think about this subject is, with all the resources that a company like IBM has I question their commitment Linux in general not just for the things which benefit them. With all the money they have claimed to spend on Linux where are the drivers for the every day little man struggling to get something going they have produced. Surely a company that size has the ability to be able to free up a few programmers to make it easier for the little man and this IMHO would show a real commitment to get Linux on every desktop not just their kit.