Defragment for knoppix...

[xaviers2002]

Does knoppix come with a defragment utility like w$?
PS. Reiserfs is much faster that ext3!!!

[tearinghairout]

I believe that the answer to your question is "No!", because most filesystems you are likely to use with Linux do not need defragmenting.

[xaviers2002]

Infact after almost a month of every day use my system doesn't show any sign of fatigue!!!

I LOVE LINUX!!!

[j.drake]

I believe that the answer to your question is "No!", because most filesystems you are likely to use with Linux do not need defragmenting.

Which is why TiVOs use Linux. When's the last time you heard of anyone defragging a TiVO? In less than a year of DVR use, I bet that a Win-based DVR would be totally hosed.

jd

[mzilikazi]

When's the last time you heard of anyone defragging a TiVO?

I laughed so hard when I read that I almost cried.

xaviers2002 here's the deal.....

Linux uses Journaling file systems. If you have a crash or have to force a reboot the journal remembers where everythihng is supposed to go and on your next boot it puts everything back where it belongs unlike that other *cough* OS from Redmond that just drops things all over the place. It always amazed me that the analysys of a hard disc would show it completely fragmented and yet wimpdows would say "this drive does not need defragmenting." Is that just blind optimism or what?

[xaviers2002]

Is that just blind optimism or what?

Yes I agree 100%!!!

About the reset I did it once and after that knoppix was not able to boot in kde. So I went for a new installation. Was this a normal behavior? If this will happen again what I have to do to enter into KDE mode?

Also, there is a company (O-Osoftware) that has defragment software for linux formatted with ext3 partition. Do You think is worthed or, since linux doesn't need to be defragmented, it is just another useless program?

Thanks

[mzilikazi]

Also, there is a company (O-Osoftware) that has defragment software for linux formatted with ext3 partition. Do You think is worthed or, since linux doesn't need to be defragmented, it is just another useless program?

Thanks

Have a link?

[pulsar]

http://www.oo-software.com/de/produc...nux/index.html

[Cuddles]

xaviers2002,

The simple fact is, Linux really doesn't need a defragmenter... The term, and the use of a program, to defragment was coined by M$, and way back in the Win3.x days... Since 95% of M$'s OS's, excluding NTFS, are all based on a variation of DOS, and the archaic attempt of "fitting as much of the data at the front of the hard drive", it has lent itself "needy" of having a defragment utility.

DOS's big downfall is that, it one, was created when disk space was a premium, and two, disk space cost large sums of money. The theory was, fit files into any available space, even if they couldn't be contained completely in the space that was available. If they can't fit in the space, fit what you can, and add the rest at the end. This wasn't a big deal in a single process OS, like DOS, but when a "multi-process" OS takes this same scheme, you get major fragmentation. Why do you think that most File Servers are not running FAT, or even VFAT? Most use NTFS, or Linux now.

From what I know, Linux does not use this same "scheme", it puts files in where they fit, all of the file, completely. This is what I know:

You have a hard drive, say 10 meg... You have a file that takes up 2 meg, then a file that is 500 KB, and then another 2 meg file... You edit the 500 KB file, and make it 1 meg, when saved...

In DOS, or FAT, or VFAT, you would still have part of this file residing in the 500 KB slot, and the remained after the last 2 meg file -=- fragmented...

In Linux, you would have a 500 KB "empty space", and the saved file would be completely stored after the last 2 meg file -=- unfragmented. I "assume", that, if your hard drive was getting full, that Linux, would, drop down to the "fragmenting" scheme, so that it could still save the file, or it would "mark" the file, fragmented, and when space was made available for it to be placed in one place together, it would do the "housekeeping" of getting to moved at that time. DOS assumes that you will do this yourself.

Most of what MS does is a "Band-Aide" approach to things, like this defragmenting, and with the "constant" need to keep adding "patches" and "updates" to there OS... Stand back sometime, and watch... You'll see what I mean... One week its OS "security" patches, the next week its Internet Explorer patches, and the week after that, your back to "security" patches, etc, etc, etc... ( and this doesn't even include all the "bug" fixes they have )

MS, has, in its history, a common thread - saving the bathwater after bathing the baby... Whereas, in the thoughts of Linux, they threw out the whole thing - baby, bathwater, and even the tub -=- and wrote the whole thing from scratch... MS, if you could examine the source for any of there OS's, has, probably, code that dates back to the Win3.x days, they are still using the technology that "made them famous", so to speak... Unfortunately, that "technology" has grown way past the days of Win3.x

Even MS's XP has "threads" of code that date back to the days of Win3.x, and thus, even though I have never run XP, ( I have seen it though ), I would guess, that WinXP has a defragmenter in its "Utility Arsenal" ( am I right? )... If I remember right, even NTFS, or WinNT had a defragmenter in it, and many times, you needed to use it... So, why would you need a defragmenter, unless the OS, or the File System, couldn't maintain the disk data without making "pot-holes" all over your disk drive? Hence, M$'s OS's come with a "defragmenter", and Linux OS's, don't need one.

In the days when you had only 32 meg hard drives, this "pot-hole technology" was a problem, but not that bad. Now-a-days, in the era of "pushing" close to TERRA hard drives, this type of "old technology" just won't cut it anymore. ( imagine the problems of a fragmented 200 MB hard drive, multiplied by 100, or 1000, or even hundreds of thousand times )

MS is a Goliath, but it never forgets its roots, and always seems to include its "past" roots in anything "new" it comes out with. ( i.e. keeping the bathwater ). Even with its new File System, New Technology File System, it still has kept its roots in the "old" technology of making "pot-holes" on your hard drive ( again, keeping the bathwater ).

Linux, on the other hand, tossed the whole thing out... In support of M$ and its "old technology" though, it has always kept its "backward" compatability -=- Even though, in many new Operating Systems they have released, they can not be simply "upgraded", but, require complete "gut-n-installs".

In my last statement here, I can only say... If an OS can be installed, and run, in DOS, it is then, still hampered by the "old technology" of that operating system and its file structure -=- DOS. If, on the other hand, that OS requires a "new" file system, one that could never run in DOS, or on a DOS partitioned hard drive, it has made the "leap" to breaking the comfines of that old technology. And, before I get flamed for this "open-ended" generalization, I will clarify... Even though Knoppix can run, and save data, on a DOS partition, when you go and install it to the hard drive, it requires the use of its own File System, one, I might add, that is not "based" or "related" to, DOS.

This is just my two cents worth...
Ms. Cuddles
PS - we now return you to your previously scheduled bandwidth, already in progress...

[Cuddles]

http://www.oo-software.com/de/products/oodlinux/index.html

Pulsar,

Following the link you provided, did, get me to a web site that "advertised" for a "Defragmentor for Penguins", but, upon further investigation, the version they are selling is version 6.5, I think, and clicking on that "version information" link, led me to a web page that only advertises for "Windows" specific OS's...

I would gather, that this company is just trying to "buy in" to Linux, from its long standing background in the Windows World...

I would be more interested in, if the warning of it being a BETA and all of its "scare tactics" of its usage didn't scare me off, would be to download it, install it, and just see, if it can even find any fragmentation... MY GUESS would be, that it simply is a nice "disk viewer", and nothing more... that it will find nothing to defragment, and thus, render it useless in a Linux installation with either a Ext2, or Ext3, file system... ( funny, it only supports these two file systems, what about reiser??? )

No diss intended, to either the company, or to you, Pulsar, for providing the link, just that, I am guessing that this program is simply something to run, that will just tell you what "most" of us have figured out already... Linux doesn't need a defragmentor, and that this kind of product is better suited for the Windows People... So, maybe, they should just "pawn off" there "snake oil" to them, instead... ( sure in heck, they know, they sure need another defragmenting program ( giggle ) )

Ms. Cuddles
Long Live The Penguin!