Do You Defrag?

[Randella]

It would obviously be better if you could specify what you prefer.



More viable to be able to turn off whatever stops some
deletes from being reversed given that particular use.

Alright ladies let's get a few things straight here...

NTFS does fragment, it is based upon FAT and therefore it does
fragment. Yet it uses different algorithms that microsoft owns and it
has many enhanced features. So you are both right and wrong.

Users do cause file fragmentation, Servers do have file fragmentation
as well.

Unix and it's many variants with their many variant file systems do
fragment or split files from time to time. You're right they may not
frag as much and they may have better control over their disk space but
they still fragment.

Back-ups can be ineffective if your backing up a fragmented file
system.

Only in NT 4.0 does a system back-up defrag the backed-up data... and
the jury is still out on that one.

Bottomline in NTFS and FAT defragmentation is always a good thing...
Microsoft teaches that from day one as do many Unix camps.

-Randy

 

[Mxsmanic]

NTFS does fragment, it is based upon FAT and therefore it does
fragment.

NTFS is completely different from FAT.

Back-ups can be ineffective if your backing up a fragmented file
system.

Why?

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Alright ladies let's get a few things straight here...

We'll see. You've actually mangled things considerably.

NTFS does fragment,
Yes.

it is based upon FAT

No it isnt.

and therefore it does fragment.

It fragments for the same reason that any file system with extents fragments,
there isnt enough continguous free space to write the file contiguously.

Yet it uses different algorithms that microsoft owns and it has
many enhanced features. So you are both right and wrong.

Nothing I said above is wrong. And I didnt say a thing about fragmentation
anyway, I was JUST discussing the UNDELETE capability. NTFS has all
the information it needs to undelete completely reliably if nothing new
has been written to a drive since the delete, it just chooses to not allow it.

Users do cause file fragmentation,

Nothing to do with users, everything to do with how files are written
to the drive. Some files cant be preallocated to continguous free
space, most obviously when the size of the file isnt known in advance,
most obviously with capture files, and when there isnt that much
contiguous free space on the drive anymore.

Servers do have file fragmentation as well.

Neither of us ever said they didnt.

Unix and it's many variants with their many variant file systems do
fragment or split files from time to time. You're right they may not
frag as much and they may have better control over their disk space
but they still fragment.

Neither of us ever said they didnt.

Back-ups can be ineffective if your backing up a fragmented file system.
Wrong.

Only in NT 4.0 does a system back-up defrag the backed-up data...
and the jury is still out on that one.

Bottomline in NTFS and FAT defragmentation is always a good thing...

Wrong again. Its a complete waste of time with
a fully backed up system in most situations.

Microsoft teaches that from day one

Wrong again.

as do many Unix camps.

Irrelevant, its just plain wrong with most modern multitasking systems
which move the heads around during normal activity FAR more than
you ever see with the occasional head movement between fragments
with files that mostly arent read linearly anymore.

And even with files that are still read linearly, say when playing back
captured files, the speed of the playback isnt affected by the head
movement between fragments, because the playback speed is
MUCH slower than the heads can deliver the data from the platters
even with video files.

 

[clean]

Bottomline in NTFS and FAT defragmentation is always a good thing...
Microsoft teaches that from day one as do many Unix camps.

-Randy

I think that piece of shit defragmenter that shipped with window2000
did more to give defragmenting a bad name than anything else.

It's hard to imagine that it worked at all aside from killing off
hard drives that didn't have adequate cooling.

It cracked me up that they thought anyone would send them money to
buy the real version of their defragmenting program after seeing
their crippled version. I went with perfect disk and am quite happy
with it.

 

[Mxsmanic]

NTFS has all the information it needs to undelete completely
reliably if nothing new has been written to a drive since
the delete, it just chooses to not allow it.

I'm not so sure. IIRC, NTFS blasts the MFT entry for a file when it
is deleted. The raw data is still out there somewhere, but NTFS no
longer has any idea where to find it, and can't recover anything that
would help to find it. This is by design.

 

[Randella]

Look ladies don't get jealous...

NTFS is FAT based which is why it fragments, but you don't have to
believe me, lets ask Microsoft:

http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...bf8e-4164-862d-dac5418c59481033.mspx?mfr=true

http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...810c3217-77bb-4553-b6ce-3ff10dbdbac91033.mspx

Notice the file allocation table built into NTFS. They refer to it as
a MBR, that should look familiar as it is a FAT component. In fact it
is the key structure in NTFS and FAT. That would make NTFS FAT based.
Deny it all you want, but it's really simple. Even a child can see
that they are one and the same.

Defragmentation is essential to a file system even one as complex as
NTFS:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/maintain/optimize/w2kexec.mspx

NTFS Facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS

Facts about FAT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table

As far as back-ups are concerned... Your back-ups will take more time
and waste vital resources if you decide not to defragment your systems.
Sometimes they might even fail (gasp!). Imagine that, oh wait you
will cause you have no way to prve me wrong. Experience... ladies.
Experience is what your lacking.

-Randy

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed writes

I'm not so sure. IIRC, NTFS blasts the MFT entry for a file when it is deleted.

It cant be that black and white if SOME files are undeletable.

And I was essentially saying that I would prefer to be
able to specify that I dont want the MFT entry for the
file to be 'blasted' for security in some situations.

The raw data is still out there somewhere, but NTFS no
longer has any idea where to find it, and can't recover
anything that would help to find it. This is by design.

It cant be that black and white if SOME files are undeletable. And they are.

 

[Rod Speed]

Look ladies don't get jealous...

NTFS is FAT based

No it isnt.

which is why it fragments,

Wrong again. Any file system with extents fragments.

but you don't have to believe me, lets ask Microsoft:

http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...810c3217-77bb-4553-b6ce-3ff10dbdbac91033.mspx

Neither of those say its FAT based.

Notice the file allocation table built into NTFS.

Doesnt mean that its FAT based.

They refer to it as a MBR,

An MBR isnt a FAT anyway.

that should look familiar as it is a FAT component.

Wrong again, its a boot record.

In fact it is the key structure in NTFS and FAT.

Yes, any bootable file system needs an MBR and even the unix file
systems use the MBR on PCs. Doesnt mean its FAT based tho.

That would make NTFS FAT based.

Nope, an MBR aint anything like a FAT.

Deny it all you want, but it's really simple. Even
a child can see that they are one and the same.

Fraid not.

Defragmentation is essential to a file system even one as complex as NTFS:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/maintain/optimize/w2kexec.mspx

Wrong again. And that doesnt say its essential anyway.

NTFS Facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS

That doesnt say that NTFS is FAT based.

Facts about FAT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table

Even you should be able to compare that with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBR
and see the difference.

As far as back-ups are concerned... Your back-ups will take more time
and waste vital resources if you decide not to defragment your systems.

Wrong again. The extra head moves between fragments are a fart
in the bath in the total head movements involved in a full backup.

And there are no 'vital resources' involved either.

Sometimes they might even fail (gasp!).

Pig ignorant fantasy.

Imagine that, oh wait you will cause you have no way to prve me wrong.

Fraid so.

Experience... ladies. Experience is what your lacking.

Been doing it since before you were born most likely, child.

 

[Mxsmanic]

NTFS is FAT based which is why it fragments, but you don't have to
believe me, lets ask Microsoft:

I did. NTFS is completely different from FAT.

Notice the file allocation table built into NTFS. They refer to it as
a MBR, that should look familiar as it is a FAT component. In fact it
is the key structure in NTFS and FAT. That would make NTFS FAT based.
Deny it all you want, but it's really simple. Even a child can see
that they are one and the same.

Master boot records are present in every PC, as a general rule, no
matter what file system is used.

As far as back-ups are concerned... Your back-ups will take more time
and waste vital resources if you decide not to defragment your systems.

I've never seen a difference.

Sometimes they might even fail (gasp!).

There is no reason for that to happen.

Imagine that, oh wait you will cause you have no way to prve me wrong.
Experience... ladies. Experience is what your lacking.

I have a couple decades of it, and I've never encountered the problems
you describe.

 

[Mxsmanic]

It cant be that black and white if SOME files are undeletable.

I suppose an undelete could actually scan disk space and try to find
old files. I don't remember the details, but I know that NTFS was
designed to make undeletes very hard.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed writes

I suppose an undelete could actually
scan disk space and try to find old files.

Cant be that, it finds them too quickly for that.

I don't remember the details, but I know that NTFS
was designed to make undeletes very hard.

Sure, thats always been the theory and I did see that with most
undelete apps. Have just seen a couple that do manage to undelete
SOME files tho, so the theory and practice dont match.

 

[Randella]

I did. NTFS is completely different from FAT.


Master boot records are present in every PC, as a general rule, no
matter what file system is used.


I've never seen a difference.


There is no reason for that to happen.


I have a couple decades of it, and I've never encountered the problems
you describe.

I prove my point and give you guys graphs and links and color
compairisons to look at and all you can do is whine, and say no... The
Microsoft articles are wrong and I am a liar blah, blah, blah.

So let me ask you a few questions Grandpa...(a few decades would make
you about 60-80 years old in compairison, if you have been doing this
since I was a child, as you claim).

What file system has been around for decades that you have been
backing-up?

Where is the Microsoft MBR in UNIX? I agree UNIX has a boot sector but
not a Microsoft MBR. That's right. The Microsoft has a unique MBR,
that if you were to call them and ask they would have told you. So
nice try but I wasn't speaking in general terms here. Of course every
PC uses a MBR structure of some sort.

Also if NTFS uses a FAT or a File Allocation Table as I have indicated
above, how is it not FAT based?

Notice that the only files systems in use today that use File
Allocation Tables are FAT or a derivatives of FAT and NTFS. Strange
how that all works out eh?

I gave you the articles above to show you side by side compairisons
direct from Microsoft of the 2 file systems. I also gave you links to
somewhat modern references to educate you on the file systems and
defragmenting.

What part of this doesn't make sense to you ladies?

" It's essential that an operating system be able to maintain your
disks at peak levels of reliability and performance. The Windows® 2000
operating system does this through a built-in system tool called Disk
Defragmenter."

Why would that be in a microsoft article about NTFS and Windows 2000
Server on microsoft's website if it wasn't essential?

The coffee is fresh better wake-up while you can still get some...

 

[Mxsmanic]

So let me ask you a few questions Grandpa...(a few decades would make
you about 60-80 years old in compairison, if you have been doing this
since I was a child, as you claim).

What file system has been around for decades that you have been
backing-up?

FAT (25 years old), NTFS (11 years old), various proprietary file
systems.

Where is the Microsoft MBR in UNIX?

Neither UNIX nor Windows has the notion of an MBR. The MBR is outside
the OS. The master boot record, as its name implies, is used
independently of the OS, _before_ the OS is booted.

Also if NTFS uses a FAT or a File Allocation Table as I have indicated
above, how is it not FAT based?

Believe it or not, there are other ways of tracking allocated space
that have no connection at all to FAT.

NTFS doesn't have a FAT.

I gave you the articles above to show you side by side compairisons
direct from Microsoft of the 2 file systems. I also gave you links to
somewhat modern references to educate you on the file systems and
defragmenting.

I've generally relied on the source code, and on some documents that
are either out of print or not published.

Why would that be in a microsoft article about NTFS and Windows 2000
Server on microsoft's website if it wasn't essential?

Microsoft talks about Vista on its Web site, but that doesn't make
Vista essential.

 

[Randella]

Ok so 2006 - 25 = 1981...

That is prior to FAT unless you had a computer programmed by Bill Gates
himself. Nice try...

FYI, Yes FAT has been around since 1977, that is when Bill Gates first
started programming with it, but it wasn't released until 1980 and it
only worked on particular systems... Try 1984/5 for a US release date
by IBM and still not widely used at that time either...

And I agree with you that the MBR is outside the OS. But so is the
file system. You don't need an OS to have a file system in place.

See where you are loosing grip is right there, NTFS is a File system
not an OS. NTFS writes it's own FAT in as the MBR. Thereby producing
the NTFS file system and structure.

And if you don't believe me, try and prove me wrong... Where are your
articles? Where is the proof? This should be easy with your decades of
experience.

Also if NTFS is not FAT based then why does NTFS have the 4 Primary
Partition limitation that FAT has? That is determined by the MBR.
Unix has no such limitation.

Source code? You have the source code for NTFS? You my friend have
something no one else in the world has... I'm sure Microsoft would be
thrilled to hear about how you got it.

Your pulling on strings that aren't there with the Vista stuff...

I was responding to your comment about Disk Defragmenting being
non-essential. How essential is gas in your car? Well you could
always use 100% ethanol, or make your own gas substitute, sure. But
your car was built to run on gas and as such The Windows operating
systems were built to be defragmented from time to time.

The proof is in the article and the source.

Mine are all current and from Microsoft or other reliable sources,
where are yours from again?

-Randy

 

[Rod Speed]

Mxsmanic wrote

I prove my point

No you didnt. You couldnt even manage to work
out the difference between an MBR and a FAT.

and give you guys graphs and links and color compairisons to look at

None of which even substantiated the pig ignorant claims you made.

and all you can do is whine, and say no...
The Microsoft articles are wrong

No one ever said that. We JUST said that YOU couldnt manage
to work out what the MS articles were actually saying.

You cant list even a single one which actually says
that defragging is ESSENTIAL, or that a backup
of a system that hasnt been defragged can fail.

and I am a liar blah, blah, blah.

You are clearly lying just above.

So let me ask you a few questions Grandpa...(a few decades
would make you about 60-80 years old in compairison, if you
have been doing this since I was a child, as you claim).

Yep, turns out that I got that right. Thanks for that.

What file system has been around for
decades that you have been backing-up?

Everything from DOS back to stuff you have never
even heard of, mostly in the DEC minis thanks.

Where is the Microsoft MBR in UNIX?

No one ever said that there was a MICROSOFT MBR.

YOU stupidly claimed that the presence of AN MBR means that
the file system is FAT based. Wrong, most obviously with a PC
that has unix installed on it. Not a FAT in sight, JUST an MBR.

I agree UNIX has a boot sector but not a Microsoft MBR.
That's right. The Microsoft has a unique MBR, that if you
were to call them and ask they would have told you.

No one ever said that it wasnt unique. YOU stupidly claimed that the
presense of the MBR means that the file system has FAT. Wrong.

So nice try but I wasn't speaking in general terms here.
Of course every PC uses a MBR structure of some sort.

So your stupid claim that just because there is an MBR
means that there is also a FAT is just plain wrong.

THERE IS NO FAT WITH AN NTFS FORMATTED
DRIVE, even tho there is certainly an MBR.

Also if NTFS uses a FAT or a File Allocation
Table as I have indicated above,

It doesnt. It uses a different approach to a FAT.

how is it not FAT based?

Because it has no FAT.

Notice that the only files systems in use today that use File
Allocation Tables are FAT or a derivatives of FAT and NTFS.

Thats just meaningless gobbledegook. THERE
IS NO FAT IN THE NTFS FILE SYSTEM.

Strange how that all works out eh?

I gave you the articles above to show you side by side
compairisons direct from Microsoft of the 2 file systems.

Pity one was completey irrelevant to what was being
discussed, you stupid pig ignorant claim about MBRs.

I also gave you links to somewhat modern references

Way past their useby date, actually.

to educate you on the file systems and defragmenting.

All you ever did was flaunt your complete pig ignorance.
In spades with what an MBR is about.

What part of this doesn't make sense to you ladies?

" It's essential that an operating system be able to maintain
your disks at peak levels of reliability and performance.

Thats just meaningless waffle. And it isnt essential at all
with modern desktop systems which have decent fast drives.

At most its only desirable.

AND you havent established that with modern multitasking OSs
that the few extra head movements that are involved with moving
between fragments of an undefragged file in the only situations
where the entire file is read matters a damn with the only files
that are read from end to end much like with mp3 and avis etc,
that the extra head moves have any effect what so ever given
that the speed is ENTIRELY controlled by the sampling rate.

The Windows® 2000 operating system does this through
a built-in system tool called Disk Defragmenter."

And it does NOT say that defragging is ESSENTIAL.

In fact it actually says

File fragmentation can negatively affect operating system speed and performance.

The word CAN is there for a reason. AND thats a SERVER, not a desktop anyway.

Why would that be in a microsoft article about NTFS and Windows
2000 Server on microsoft's website if it wasn't essential?

So stupid that it cant even manage to work out the
difference between essential and just desirable.

AND that particular article has continued the party line since the
days when hard drives couldnt seek at anything like the rate that
modern hard drives seek at. The modern reality with DESKTOP
systems is that the heads are moving around a hell of a lot anyway
due to stuff as trivial as the internet cache etc, and a few more
seeks involved with the files that are read from end to end like
mp3s and avis dont matter a damn because those extra seeks
are completely invisible because the bit rate only require
a MUCH slower thruput than the drive can do.

 

[Randella]

PS... FAT16 wasn't released until 1987...

So unless you know how to code or program FAT12 then I am sorry your
crediblity along with your pride just went out the window...

Good Luck explaining how you used FAT12...

-Randy

 

[Randella]

Rod,

I don't think you'll be able to put all this together but you just
proved my point...

Thanks for highlighting the need to defragment an NTFS drive.

One day maybe you realize that the world does not listen to people who
have no clue.

-Randy

 

[David Maynard]

I prove my point and give you guys graphs and links and color
compairisons to look at and all you can do is whine, and say no... The
Microsoft articles are wrong and I am a liar blah, blah, blah.

No one is saying the Microsoft articles are 'wrong'. What they're saying,
and I agree, is it's mind boggling how you could read them and come to an
erroneous conclusion in direct opposition to everything said in them.

NTFS is not 'FAT based' and the MBR has nothing to do with the file system,
much less 'file allocation tables'.

The core of NTFS is the MFT (master file table).

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/100108/

"NTFS OVERVIEW
....THERE ARE NO special locations on the disk, such as
--->FAT tables<----..." (emphasis added)
<snip>

 

[John Doe]

Look ladies don't get jealous...

The authors you are addressing are not ladies, Randella.

NTFS is FAT based

The Internet is a great resource for figuring out things based on
word usage.

For example, when you search the vast history of USENET for the
phrase "NTFS is FAT based" the only result is by an author named
"Randella".

If you search the archives for "NTFS is based on FAT" you get zero
results.

If you search the open Internet Yahoo for "NTFS is FAT based" you
get zero results.

If you search the open Internet Yahoo for "NTFS is based on FAT" you
get one result from someone who "only smokes the good stuff".

The conclusion is clear enough to me.

I would ask for a citation/reference, but I know you cannot provide
one.

Experience... ladies.
Experience is what your lacking.

Apparently most of your experience has been in Google Groups.

Welcome to USENET.

 

[Rod Speed]

I don't think you'll be able to put all this
together but you just proved my point...

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Thanks for highlighting the need to defragment an NTFS drive.

Lying, as always.

One day maybe you realize that the world
does not listen to people who have no clue.

Thats not doubt experience talking in your case.