🚀 go-pugleaf

Tom MacIntyre wrote in message <37c13471.215881163@news1.ns.sympatico.ca>...
>"Rod Speed" <rodspeed@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>Hyper <jimb@snip.net> wrote in message news:37C0B916.67BA455@snip.net...
>>nothing but completely childish stuff, flushed where it belongs.
>>
>>
>>
>I disagree, and so do you, Rod, since you deign to answer the post in
>your next post...Hyper, a good post, and the only scenario that I
>would add is that fragmentation also occurs as files (data, text) grow
>in size, past increments of the cluster size, where the next cluster
>is no longer available. This type of event is more likely on a FAT32
>drive with its smaller clusters, if there are many smaller data/text
>files being generated.
>
>Tom

Great point Tom.  I had thought to explain that fragmentation happens
this  way too, but found that Rod can't handle the mental imaging of
files getting larger.  Never thought to correlate it to the smaller cluster
of FAT32.  Of course more fragmentation would occur with a cluster
size of 4KB instead of 16KB.  As you add to a report or database,
the file will be fragmented all over the drive.

Actually, I have been thinking it would be nice to be able to reserve
a certain amount of space at the end of a file to prevent this.  If each
document file were to tag the next few clusters when it is saved, and
those tagged clusters would be preserved even after the drive is
defragged, then the file could have room to grow without fragmenting.
Maybe a check box available for certain file types or programs,
such as *.doc files, or the MS Word program.  Same with database
files and programs.

But of course it isn't a big deal for me, as I only have to defrag one
drive usually anyway, where I keep my documents and databases
and files that I download off the web.
--
Aaron Marks