5punk

yay microsoft

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060720-7319.html

Just like XP...

Why don't they use/make a filesystem that doesn't fragment (much) in the first place, UNIX type OSs have had this since forever*

*may not actually be forever

spoodie wrote:Why don't they use/make a filesystem that doesn't fragment (much) in the first place, UNIX type OSs have had this since forever*

*may not actually be forever

Oh? Which file system is that?
Just because ext3 and Reiser don't have defraggers (that I know of), that doesn't mean they don't fragment. Horribly. Especially when your drives get full.

I don't see how this is news either. XP and 2k3 defrag in the background when idle (although I do have Diskeeper installed).

*nix filesystems in general can't have defragmenters as they are primarly designed as Network Operating Systems, thus a 'defrag' tool would be unable to take full control of the disk, as any process can access the disk any time.

They are designed to store data more efficiently, with awareness of the disk's cylinders and so do not often require defragging. It isn't perfect though and fragmentation does occur, most notably when disks approach their capacity - this isn't exactly the OS's fault, though.

Defragging on *nix typically has to be done manually via backup and restore.

MS have been working on the cut-down version of Diskeeper they licensed and added some features, probably similar to to those of Diskkeeper Premium.

eion wrote:Oh? Which file system is that?
Just because ext3 and Reiser don't have defraggers (that I know of), that doesn't mean they don't fragment. Horribly. Especially when your drives get full.

Hence the "(mostly)" qualifier. If you let your disk fill up the OS has little choice than fragment your files to fill up the remaining gaps. Not letting your filesystem reach maximum capacity would solve that.

FatherJack wrote:*nix filesystems in general can't have defragmenters as they are primarly designed as Network Operating Systems, thus a 'defrag' tool would be unable to take full control of the disk, as any process can access the disk any time.

But defrag tools don't need to be able to take full control of the disk. Windows Server 2003 was designed as a network operating system, but it can still cope with defragging. Some *nix file systems have defragging utilities, they just tend to not work that well (in my limited experience).

How does having in-depth knowledge of the drive geometry help you to store data more efficiently?
(I suspect that Windows knows about the drive geometry at some level also, or it might be kinda tricky for it to actually write data)
Also, I'm pretty sure that Windows avoids fragmenting files unless it has to.

Other nice thing about 2003 is that it somehow manages to run without periodically getting its knickers in a twist about broken mount points. Which is nice.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:Just like XP...

I know that my XP didn't have an automatic defragger, without buying something like diskeeper. The whole point is that it will automatically run every sunday (Default), rather than having to be asked to do it.

pixie pie wrote:I know that my XP didn't have an automatic defragger, without buying something like diskeeper. The whole point is that it will automatically run every sunday (Default), rather than having to be asked to do it.

Wrong!

It'll defrag and clean up after itself while idle. (including tidying up after dead processes etc)

spoodie wrote: Hence the "(mostly)" qualifier. If you let your disk fill up the OS has little choice than fragment your files to fill up the remaining gaps. Not letting your filesystem reach maximum capacity would solve that.

Remember it's not always possible to run a server with loadsa free HDD space - Bukkake has an 80gb HDD with *checks*

540MB free on the windows partition
16GB free on the gameserver partition (often goes down to under 1gb when fettling and stuff.

The only reason it runs so well is because i *can* defrag it.

If it was linux, it'd be fucked.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:The only reason it runs so well is because i *can* defrag it.

If it was linux, it'd be fucked.

But you could always just do a backup and restore every time it got too fragmented...
No, it's no good, I can't keep a straight face.

eion wrote: But you could always just do a backup and restore every time it got too fragmented...
No, it's no good, I can't keep a straight face.

given a backup for bukkake's *essential* stuff, and databases etc. would take up, oh, 50gb. i can see how that would be ideal.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:


given a backup for bukkake's *essential* stuff, and databases etc. would take up, oh, 50gb. i can see how that would be ideal.

And you'd need physical access to it to apply the backup.

eion wrote:And you'd need physical access to it to apply the backup.

Well, that's easy, either £60 of trains, or £100 of remote hands, say, once a month. (how often i defrag bukkake)

hell, with the money I can save by not using linux, I could buy windows server.

eion wrote:How does having in-depth knowledge of the drive geometry help you to store data more efficiently?

When saving a file, if the OS looks for a location where the whole file can be saved contiguously on a single cylinder it will be stored more efficiently. If it cannot find anywhere, the disk is getting quite full anyway.

Defragmentation get more troublesome and takes longer the closer disks get to capacity and is not possible on completely full disks, on half-full disks it is easy.

Bukkake is a game server, running Windows-based games, so W2K server is the logical choice of OS. Windows(DOS) and Unix (not the half-breed Linux) started at different ends - whereas Windows began as a dekstop OS, Unix's first application was network communication. These days they have converged: Windows has incorporated netorking modules and *nix systems have desktop varieties.

It is only fairly recently that MS have gotten the tools working that allow you to remotely manage Bukkake, tools that were part of Unix systems from its early days, but it is to MS's credit that they have done so. Now managing remote Windows servers is not the pain in the arse that it used to be.

FatherJack wrote:Bukkake is a game server, running Windows-based games, so W2K server is the logical choice of OS.

Close.

Bukkake is a gameserver, it runs gameservers. all of which have linux support, as does the admin stuff.

You have to admit that NTFS could do with some improving though.

I wasn't suggesting using a *nix type filesystem for Windows as that wouldn't be appropriate and I didn't mean to start another blah Vs blah argument. What I meant to say was that I'd rather see an improved filesystem than a widget dock where you can put a clock and other crap that eats all your resources. But then I'm not your average user but an average nerd.

spoodie wrote:You have to admit that NTFS could do with some improving though.

That i can sorta agree with. ish.

I think NTFS is pretty acceptable as is - though i'm really not an expert on such things

However, the way some apps work (like firefox) the cache can do bad things to the fragmentation situation - but, that is not an NTFS thing as such, that's just a poorly coded cache. (if the cache/history gave itself enough padding to hold the max cache size, and some extra - then worked within that, there'd not be a problem)

FatherJack wrote: When saving a file, if the OS looks for a location where the whole file can be saved contiguously on a single cylinder it will be stored more efficiently. If it cannot find anywhere, the disk is getting quite full anyway.

Not to nitpick, but most files cannot be stored contiguously on a single cylinder
In addition, the disk might not be full, just heavily fragmented. But it's cool, you can always do a full backup and restore...

That aside, pretty much every operating system works in this way. There's no special knowledge of drive geometry involved, though - I'm pretty sure of this, because RAID cards don't generally pass stuff like individual drive geometry on to the operating system.

FatherJack wrote: Bukkake is a game server, running Windows-based games, so W2K server is the logical choice of OS.

Another nitpick, but Bukkake does not run Windows 2000.

FatherJack wrote: Windows(DOS) and Unix (not the half-breed Linux) started at different ends - whereas Windows began as a dekstop OS, Unix's first application was network communication. These days they have converged: Windows has incorporated netorking modules and *nix systems have desktop varieties.

Not sure what DOS has to do with anything. Windows XP can be traced back to Windows NT, which began as a workstation/server OS. NT had networking modules from the beginning.

FatherJack wrote: It is only fairly recently that MS have gotten the tools working that allow you to remotely manage Bukkake, tools that were part of Unix systems from its early days, but it is to MS's credit that they have done so. Now managing remote Windows servers is not the pain in the arse that it used to be.

By my reckoning, it's been about eight years since Microsoft first released Terminal Services.
However, I still haven't seen a decent GUI-based remote admin system for *nix that'll run acceptably over a modem.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:I think NTFS is pretty acceptable as is - though i'm really not an expert on such things

I'm no expert either. I have to pretend to be expert on all things computer as it's expected and it's my job.

*speaks authoritatively about things I've spent 5 mins reading about on wiki*

edit: It looks like someone wants this argument to continue but I'm not going to rise to it. There's a lot of nit-picking there eion

YOU ALL LOVE TEH HORSES



and that is the closest I can come to a meaningful contribution here. My work is done.