Knoppix/Debian File System Questions...

[Cuddles]

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

[fingers99]

Linux does it better!

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.

[Cuddles]

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 ]

[gowator]

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

[Cuddles]

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

[gowator]

yesh thatz bodly misspooled!!!

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!!!

[Cuddles]

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

[gowator]

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!

[Cuddles]

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. 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

[Stephen]

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.

...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.

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:

>$ 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.