Regarding filesystem behavior over time, which statement about fragmentation is most accurate, and what operational remedy can reduce it temporarily?

Introduction / Context:
As files are created, extended, and deleted, free space becomes scattered, causing fragmentation. Fragmentation degrades sequential I/O performance and increases seek/latency. Operators routinely mitigate the effect through maintenance, but it tends to recur with continued use.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• General-purpose filesystems allocate blocks as needed over time.
• Workloads include growth and deletion of many files.
• We consider practical operational remedies rather than theoretical ideals.

Concept / Approach:
Defragmentation (compaction) reorganizes file extents to place file blocks contiguously and consolidates free space, improving I/O locality. However, ongoing activity will fragment storage again, so the improvement is temporary. Fragmentation is not strictly limited to “improper use,” nor can it be universally prevented; designs reduce but rarely eliminate it under arbitrary workloads.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Benchmarking before and after defragmentation shows reduced seeks and better throughput. Over days or weeks of normal activity, measured fragmentation rises again, demonstrating the temporary nature of the remedy.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Occurs only if used improperly: False; normal workloads can fragment storage.
• Can always be prevented: Unrealistic; only reduced by allocation strategies.
• Characteristic of all filesystems: Overbroad; some designs mitigate it strongly.
• None of the above: Incorrect because compaction/defrag is a valid remedy.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming SSDs are unaffected; while they lack seeks, fragmentation can still affect metadata locality and garbage collection behavior, though impacts differ from HDDs.

Final Answer:
Can be temporarily removed by compaction (defragmentation)