Jim Cornette wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
[snip]
>>> Surely those who argue that ext3 does not get fragmented
>>> during install don't think that 248 extents is "not
>>> significant fragmentation".
>>>
>>> I assure you that I have done nothing on my system to try to
>>> fragment emacs.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The fragmentation for your emacs is unbelievably high. I did not find
>> anything yet fragmented in the hundreds, let alone several hundred
>> extents. Are you using LVM? My system is setup in traditional
>> partitions. LVM usage "seemed" slower in responsiveness, so I assumed
>> it was more in fragments
>
>
>
> Why "unvelievably"? Do you mean that you do not believe what my
> system says? Or that you do not believe my e-mail? Or that you
> find that it stretches your imagination? Or what?
>
> To answer your question, I use FC2.
>
> Mike
Unbelievable simply refers to this fragmentation number sounds like it
Well, then I agree with you. This seems extreme.
should not happen. I have no doubt that you are seeing this on your
system. Since you are running FC2, I assume the system is using regular
partitions and that the system has been in operation for a long time.
Sorry if the response sounded otherwise.
It was installed in late October 2004. Although, as one pointed
out, multiple extents does not *necessarily* imply fragmentation,
it is extremely suggestive, and indicates that fragmentation is
*likely*.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!