Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Vista Attacked by Defraggers

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 wrote
on Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:15:21 +0000
<2640552.7oy0u63Aer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Defraggers attack Vista, each other
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Competition in the market is stiff, as with escalating storage demands
> | being placed on hard disks, defragmentation is as vital as ever. Yet
> | disk fragmentation is a problem often overlooked by enteprise IT
> | departments, if not when it comes to servers then almost certainly
> | when it comes to end users' workstations.
> `----
>
> http://www.businessreviewonline.com/blog/archives/2007/01/defraggers_atta.html
>
> What is defrag? What is a virus? Why do people take these things for granted?

I'm not sure we should.  Linux might also benefit from
a defragger, if the problem is properly specified.
Of course, there are a *lot* of issues here:

- proper block placement on the file system
- intelligent caching
- file usage
- file and directory contiguity maintenance

Since Linux has multiple volume types (ext3, reiserfs, and jfs
are probably the most commonly used), the defrag problem might
have to be targeted to a specific type.  I don't know how
journaling affects the problem, either, though AFAICT journaling
merely dedicates an area of the disk to the journal, allowing
for rollforwards in event of a crash.

I suspect many defraggers will contiguize (contiguify?
compact? squish?) files and directories readily enough,
but if it leaves interrelated files scattered all
throughout the volume, one has gained nothing, really.
(Files are interrelated if the application that usually
reads one of the files has to read the others as well;
one example coming to mind is a .XML document with .XSL
processors, .CSS style sheets, and images; the .XSL might
do further inclusions.  Another example is a set of
.JAR files needed to run a Java application or web server.)

As for viruses -- Linux has a smattering of viruses
("bliss" comes to mind), but they do far less damage than
their Windows counterparts, even if they're successful at
gaining entrance (local user compromise) to a machine.
For starters, viruses can't write on read-only files,
and unless said virus can leverage a poor victim that
does have root access, the best it can do is infect a
developer's local executables.

To be sure, Linux does have a minor vulnerability: some
enterprising young hacker might try to emulate a distro's
release area and either hijack an upstream DNS system or
convince a user to download a contaminated .rpm, .deb,
or other file.  This is not a vulnerability specific
to Linux, of course -- Windows has exactly the same
problem, exacerbated by the many freeware/shareware sites.
Of course Windows has further problems, such as allowing
a user to infect his entire system just by clicking on
links in infectious emails.

But never mind that...where did we want to go today?  :-)

>
>
> Related:
>
> Top 10 disk defragging pointers
>
> ,----[ Gist ]
> | # Work it!
> | # Use your noggin.
> | # What are you waiting for?
> | # Know your disk capacity and potential disk errors.
> | # Server bottlenecks.
> | # Leave me alone!
> | # Application interference.
> | # Respect the differences.
> | # Don't rely on the built-in Windows defragger.
> | # Stay in charge.
> `----
>
> http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/tip/1,289483,sid5_gci888617,00.html
>
>
> Raxco Software Releases PerfectDisk Defragmenter for Windows Vista
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Raxco Software, the worldwide leader in disk defragmentation
> | software, announced today its award-winning PerfectDisk now
> | supports Microsoft's new Windows Vista? operating system. 
> | PerfectDisk is the first third-party defragger to support Vista.
> `----
>
> http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=192692

    Vista's built-in defragger has critical limitations for users,
    including use of a multi-pass defrag engine, limited flexibility in
    scheduling when and how often it runs, lack of information reported
    to end users, and much more. PerfectDisk fills the major void in the
    built-in defragger and provides much more.

That's it?  Those are the Raxco PerfectDisk advantages, a scheduler,
better reporting, and a (presumably faster) single-pass engine?

Ow, my brain.

A better illustration (of course it's biased, but what
does one expect from sales literature?) is at

http://www.perfectdisk.com/products/perfectdisk2k/compareV8.cfm

Of interest is the "patented file placement strategy".
One wonders which patent.  There's also a comment that it
can install itself without a user interface.  (Erm...wait.
If no user can communicate with the utility how do we
know it's doing anything??!  Of course what they probably
meant is more along the lines of automagically doing its
thing on a regular basis, possibly under the control of
a network administrator.  Like I said...sales literature.)

-- 
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Useless C++ Programming Idea #10239993:
char * f(char *p) {char *q = malloc(strlen(p)); strcpy(q,p); return q; }

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index