"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:63nocdF284nq0U5@mid.individual.net...
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:01:42 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>
>> "bamboozle" <bamb@oozle.com> wrote in message
>> news:47d5dc5f@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:63l3dqF26tf91U5@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>> Or one could move to a modern filesystem which does not need
>>>> defragmenting and obviate the entire process.
>>>
>>>
>>> modern as in linux that is 20 years old? lol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> You have to remember that the linux guys still use FAT32 (note 1) when
>> they use windows and that did need defragging. NTFS does not need to be
>> defragged but like all disk based systems, including the latest linux
>> ones, benefit from optimisation which is what the vista defragger does
>> in the background.
>
> Why is that? I use, and most other folks I know use, ntfs-3g to read and
> write NTFS systems with no difficulty -

Does it update the metadata and stuff like that?
I also read and write NTFS but the last time I read a readme it said it
could be unreliable.. maybe they are just covering themselves incase M$
changes something?

> which, according to many recent
> discussions still needs to be regularly defragmented - or else why would
> everyone still be doing it?

Ask them, I bet they don't notice any difference.

>> Note 1: most linux users use FAT32 for windows support because Linux
>> can't reliably handle NTFS and they get problems using NTFS. This suits
>> them anyway as it perpetuates their *erroneous* belief that you have to
>> defrag windows but not linux.
>
> That my friend, is B.S. Linux has been properly reading and writing NTFS
> for some time now - despite the fact that MS has never released proper
> docomentation. Indeed a marvel of reverse engineering.

I remember seeing M$ documentation about NTFS a while back.. maybe it didn't
list all the detasils but it certainly showed what all the pointers and
stuff did.
>
>>
>> Anyway to the OP and anyone that wants to defrag Vista, just let Vista
>> do its work in the background and forget about all the fancy displays,
>> etc. it works fine. The add on utils will show fragmentation but that is
>> because vista doesn't move stuff if it is not going to see an
>> improvement in performance so it still leaves some files in "fragments"
>> just like the linux file systems do.
>
> I thought you just told us it didn't need that!!

Need and useful are confusing to you I take it.
Why not defrag one of your linux disks that has been full and in use for 12
months and see what optimising a disk file system can do and then you would
understand why you "defrag" disk based filesystems.
If you need help on how to defrag a linux filesystem feel free to ask.