linux-ext4 - Re: e4defrag don't work really well

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 16 Feb 2023 13:56:51 -0600
From:   Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To:     Reindl Harald <h.reindl@...lounge.net>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e4defrag don't work really well

On 2/16/23 12:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 16.02.23 um 17:50 schrieb Eric Sandeen:
>> On 2/12/23 12:14 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
>>> what's wrong with e4defrag that it pretends it reduced th efragments of a file to 1 while in the next "e4defrag -c" (why does that only list 5 files at all) the same file is listed again with the same old frag count?
>>
>> You might want to examine the actual allocation before and after with "filefrag -v"
>> which could offer some clues to whether anything was modified by e4defrag.
>>
>> (I would also suggest that there is no need to defragment a 3-extent 2 megabyte
>> file, in general.)
> 
> it's not a question if it's needed
> 
> the point is it pretends "Success: [1/1]" but a following "e4defrag -c" still says "now/best 3/1"

I understand. It seems that your irritation at my parenthetical caused you
to skip over the request for more information from filefrag, though.

-Eric