I have a 900GB ext4 partition on a hard drive that has no defects and no bad sectors. The partition is completely empty except for an empty lost+found directory. The partition was formated using default parameters except that I set the number of reserved filesystem blocks to 1%.
I downloaded the ~900MB file xubuntu-15.04-desktop-amd64.iso to the directory using wget. When the download was finished, I found that the file was split into four fragments:
filefrag -v /media/emma/red/xubuntu-15.04-desktop-amd64.iso
Filesystem type is: ef53
File size of /media/emma/red/xubuntu-15.04-desktop-amd64.iso is 1009778688 (246528 blocks of 4096 bytes)
ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags:
0: 0.. 32767: 34816.. 67583: 32768:
1: 32768.. 63487: 67584.. 98303: 30720:
2: 63488.. 96255: 100352.. 133119: 32768: 98304:
3: 96256.. 126975: 133120.. 163839: 30720:
4: 126976.. 159743: 165888.. 198655: 32768: 163840:
5: 159744.. 190463: 198656.. 229375: 30720:
6: 190464.. 223231: 231424.. 264191: 32768: 229376:
7: 223232.. 246527: 264192.. 287487: 23296: eof
/media/emma/red/xubuntu-15.04-desktop-amd64.iso: 4 extents found
Thinking this might be releated to wget somehow, I removed the ISO file from the partition, making it empty again, then I copied the ~700MB file v1.mp4 to the partition using cp. This file was fragmented too. It was split into three fragments:
filefrag -v /media/emma/red/v1.mp4
Filesystem type is: ef53
File size of /media/emma/red/v1.mp4 is 737904458 (180153 blocks of 4096 bytes)
ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags:
0: 0.. 32767: 34816.. 67583: 32768:
1: 32768.. 63487: 67584.. 98303: 30720:
2: 63488.. 96255: 100352.. 133119: 32768: 98304:
3: 96256.. 126975: 133120.. 163839: 30720:
4: 126976.. 159743: 165888.. 198655: 32768: 163840:
5: 159744.. 180152: 198656.. 219064: 20409: eof
/media/emma/red/v1.mp4: 3 extents found
Why is this happening? I thought ext4 was meant to be resistant to fragmentation. Instead I find that it immediately fragments a solitary file when all the rest of the volume is unused. This seems to be worse than both FAT32 and NTFS.