Re: e4defrag don't work really well

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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



[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux