On 2/16/23 12:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 16.02.23 um 17:50 schrieb Eric Sandeen: >> On 2/12/23 12:14 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> >>> what's wrong with e4defrag that it pretends it reduced th efragments of a file to 1 while in the next "e4defrag -c" (why does that only list 5 files at all) the same file is listed again with the same old frag count? >> >> You might want to examine the actual allocation before and after with "filefrag -v" >> which could offer some clues to whether anything was modified by e4defrag. >> >> (I would also suggest that there is no need to defragment a 3-extent 2 megabyte >> file, in general.) > > it's not a question if it's needed > > the point is it pretends "Success: [1/1]" but a following "e4defrag -c" still says "now/best 3/1" I understand. It seems that your irritation at my parenthetical caused you to skip over the request for more information from filefrag, though. -Eric
