Oh that... the 'free space' statement is just a prediction of how fragmented it THINKS you should be based on the free space available.

WAFL writes anywhere it can find a hole on disk (to put it very simply, that is... there is a much more complex algorithm behind it in reality). Given this, when the disk starts filling up, the likelihood of finding non-contiguous blocks increases... meaning with less free space, you should have more fragmentation. I believe that to be the root of the 'free space\fragmentation' statement that wafl scan reallocate gives as output.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Lori Barfield Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:25 PM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: wafl scan reallocate

On 3/8/06, Glenn Walker ggwalker@mindspring.com wrote:

Lori,

From what I recall about the way WAFL scans, and what I can infer from that, I don't believe that a fragmented filesystem would make the scan take any longer.

If I'm correct in my thinking, it scans the blocks contiguously and determines how many blocks that belong together (for files) are

actually

in the same place. The ratio is where the index comes from...

thanks, glen. if it's that simple then i wonder what it's doing with the "free space" factor.

...lori