Having come from a windows enviroment, I was curious if defragmenters are useful in *nix. More specifically, OS X.


9 Answers 9


It's a bit of a yes, no answer. Useful in certain circumstances but it's less of an issue than it was with FAT or regular HFS. All filesystems will fragment but newer ones are more resistant to fragmenting so badly.

Speaking for Mac OS X specifically HFS+ does a decent enough job of trying to keep things from being fragmented compared to older systems but it still happens just not on the same scale. The OS itself also defrags "small" (20MB or smaller) files on the fly since 10.3 (Panther).

Fragmenting still happens and you can see performance drop because of it, especially in video editing systems or a workflow that requires the ability to read or write large files quickly to the disk. For your standard user - a near non-issue.

The most popular options for defragmenting a hard drive for OS X I've used and run across are:

  • Cloning the hard drive to another drive and back. This is done using Carbon Copy Cloner or SuperDuper and requires an extra hard drive. If done as part of a backup routine the time hit may not be terrible but it's free to do it this way.

  • iDefrag, Drive Genius and a handful of other utilities will all defragment your hard drive as well. Personally I prefer iDefrag.


Yes, they are. People will give you lies like "UNIX filesystems never fragment." They are liars, and you should listen to me instead. Files like sqlite databases, as used by firefox, will quickly fragment as they deliver small writes regularly as you use the browser. At one point my profile had a sqlite database with over three thousand fragments.

These sqlite databases contain the browser history, and are used in places to suggest text strings to you, like URL completion or form autofill. If they are fragmented, you will suffer. Some of this may be masked by OSX's decision to implement POSIX fsync() as a no-op (allowed by the standard, but not very nice). So it's not like you need to edit video to trigger bad conditions, just a large history database that properly calls fsync() on OSX.

On Ubuntu you can check how fragmented a file is with the utility filefrag, in package e2fsprogs. It requires root permissions, but gives you a view of how many non-contiguous regions a file has. As the package name suggests, it is not ext4 aware (yet). Hopefully, ext4's delayed allocation and extents support reduces fragmentation in the wild.


As far as I know, unix file systems like EXT or HFS don't suffer from fragmentation like FAT or NTSF, at least not in the same order of magnitude.

Read more about it here and also check this apple support page about disk maintenance

  • The 25 June 2009 edition of support.apple.com/kb/TS1417 is misleading. It mentions fragmentation in the context of fsck but fsck_hfs does not give information on fragmentation. Older versions of fsck_hfs have a strict requirement for contiguous free space for one type of rebuild; in other words: if free space is too fragmented, then rebuild is impossible. More recent versions of fsck_hfs are less demanding but still, it's sane to have plenty of contiguous free space. Aug 18, 2011 at 9:04

It depends on what filesystem are you using and most importantly on how are you using it. Most modern filesystem are less prone to fragmentation, but defragmentation is always useful.

You can use xfs_fsr to defragment XFS filesystems. It has some limitations, but it's better than nothing.


Mac OS X already defragments files less than 20 Mbytes in size. See this article:

Panther has automatic defragging?


ext2/ext3 can have tremendous fragmentation of free space. It can be checked with e2freefrag utility.


This is a religious issue. IMO, fragmentation is only an issue for specific workloads, and it hasn't been terribly relevant since NT4.

Exceptions that I've encountered are situations where you have lots of small writes mixed with large writes. One example that comes to mind is a busy windows file server with users doing stupid things like running active PST files on the server. Another would be a linux pop3 server with mailboxes in Maildir format.


HFS+ does fragment, all filesystems do. However, it doesn't appear to suffer from it, at least not to the extent that NTFS / FAT32 do.

A caveat-- I stopped noticing performance drops from file fragmentation about 5 years ago, at least as far as local files were concerned. SATA bandwidth and a 7200RPM HDD make the issue pretty much un-noticeable, IMO.



It is a chapter from Mac OS X internals book. There are described "Built-in Measures in Mac OS X Against Fragmentation" and also fragmentation checker tool is presented.

Analysis of fragmentation on 5 apple computers are also done.

  • The author begins with a note: "… sampled too few a volume to generalize my "results" …". Aug 18, 2011 at 9:10
  • Graham Perrin, but this is not a "five macs without any fragmentation." He says "This discussion is more illustrative", and this is good illustration that fragmentation MAY be common for macs
    – osgx
    Aug 18, 2011 at 10:43
  • 1
    It was an excellent article for its time, but the seven years since then have seen significant changes to preferred disk capacities, to uses of JHFS+, to uses of the attributes B-tree et cetera. The article does not consider fragmentation of attributes B-tree and (more commonly) catalog B-tree files; concerning the latter there's an answer to an Ask Different question relating to slowness of Time Machine. Considering modern use cases, I believe the 2004 conclusion is outdated. Aug 18, 2011 at 14:52
  • Graham Perrin, thanks! Do you know any written description of builtin defragmentation in newer JHFS+?
    – osgx
    Aug 18, 2011 at 15:16
  • 1
    If TN1150 (March 2004) is up-to-date, JHFS+ now is no different to JHFS+ then … however the more modern Systems seem to use the format in different ways. I plan to post an answer under Do Macs need to be defragmented? covering at least some of this. Meantime … rather than discuss in comments, let's aim for Ask Different Chat with the option of bookmarking. Aug 18, 2011 at 16:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .