Re: Defragment

2003-02-11 Thread Yven Johannes Leist
On Tuesday 11 February 2003 14:23, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 09:47:27AM -0800, Itsik Aviad wrote: > > Which leads me to believe that I probably need to defragment the > > hard drive. > > Nope. This isn't a problem. You can probably find the technica

Re: Defragment

2003-02-11 Thread Mike Dresser
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, David Z Maze wrote: > fraction gets above 5% or so; the 'defrag' package in theory can help > clean this up but it's a little dangerous, and usually unnecessary. So this one machine at home that has over 60% on all 4 hard drives might benefit from a bit of cleaning, eh? =) A

Re: Defragment

2003-02-11 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 09:47:27AM -0800, Itsik Aviad wrote: > Which leads me to believe that I probably need to defragment the > hard drive. Nope. This isn't a problem. You can probably find the technical reasons behind this on Google, I can't remember them off th

Re: Defragment

2003-02-10 Thread David Z Maze
he correct syntax) that it wasn't 'continous'. Which leads me to > believe that I probably need to defragment the hard drive. The end of the fsck process will probably display some statistics on number of blocks used and a percentage of discontinuous blocks. This is perfectly norma

Re: Defragment

2003-02-10 Thread Joris Huizer
said (and I don't remember the > correct syntax) that it wasn't 'continous'. > Which leads me to believe that I probably need to > defragment the hard drive. > Am I correct? If so how do I go about doing that? If > I am not, then how can I fix this? > Other th

Defragment

2003-02-10 Thread Itsik Aviad
ich leads me to believe that I probably need to defragment the hard drive. Am I correct? If so how do I go about doing that? If I am not, then how can I fix this? Other than that everything is working fine and when I reboot everything loads properlly. Thanks Itsik _