Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-ncis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!bionet!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!mailrus!b-tech!zeeff
From: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: sticky bit
Keywords: stricky bit has its uses
Message-ID: <5067@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Date: 17 Jan 89 14:44:00 GMT
References: <18016@adm.BRL.MIL> <14750@cisunx.UUCP> <1359@mtunb.ATT.COM> <314@twwells.uucp> <8724@alice.UUCP> <18714@santra.UUCP>
Reply-To: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Organization: Branch Technology Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 18

In article <18714@santra.UUCP> hsu@kampi.UUCP (Heikki Suonsivu) writes:
>System V does very bad job of keeping disks unfragmented. Fsanalyze
>told me that I had my CT miniframe emacs (~550k) in 400 fragments :-)

The guy who wrote fsanalyze (sdti!mjy) also wrote a program to 
unfragment disks.  It's a big win.  I don't know the current status of 
the program or distribution.  

Actually, I've never understood why the kernel didn't have some 
locking support that would allow a daemon to unfragment the disk 
during idle times.  



-- 
  Jon Zeeff			zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us
  Ann Arbor, MI			umix!b-tech!zeeff
  My other signature is a good one