Recommendation on Disk Defragmenter (allows organization of files)

[Justin Case]

I used to have Norton Utilities before I got XP many moons ago. I was
able to select while files/folders could be placed at the beginning or
end of the drive. I am currently using Disk Keeper but it really isn't
much better [for me] than the regular disk defragmenter that is build
into XP.

Any recommendation on a disk defragmenter, besides Norton that fits my
needs?

Thanks

 

[Rod Speed]

I used to have Norton Utilities before I got XP many
moons ago. I was able to select while files/folders
could be placed at the beginning or end of the drive.

XP does that sort of thing itself.

I am currently using Disk Keeper but it really isn't much better
[for me] than the regular disk defragmenter that is build into XP.

Any recommendation on a disk defragmenter,

Dont bother to defrag. Pointless with modern fast seeking hard
drives and modern OSs now except in a very few special situations.

 

[Justin Case]

Rod Speed wrote:
:
:: I used to have Norton Utilities before I got XP many
:: moons ago. I was able to select while files/folders
:: could be placed at the beginning or end of the drive.
:
: XP does that sort of thing itself.

Automatically? I can't recall a setting that allows me to change the
location of folders to be at the start or end.

: Dont bother to defrag. Pointless with modern fast seeking hard
: drives and modern OSs now except in a very few special situations.

Even on a 1.8 ghz Celeron with a 7200 rpm 200 GB WD IDE drive?

 

[Arno Wagner]

Rod Speed wrote:
:
:: I used to have Norton Utilities before I got XP many
:: moons ago. I was able to select while files/folders
:: could be placed at the beginning or end of the drive.
:
: XP does that sort of thing itself.

Automatically? I can't recall a setting that allows me to change the
location of folders to be at the start or end.

It does not. But since NTFS finally is a filesystem, that is not
prone to fragmentation, it is mostly unneeded. For Unix filesystems,
there are usually no defragging tools, because they have not been
needed ever. It is a problem mainly of FAT.

: Dont bother to defrag. Pointless with modern fast seeking hard
: drives and modern OSs now except in a very few special situations.

Even on a 1.8 ghz Celeron with a 7200 rpm 200 GB WD IDE drive?

If you have FAT, then defrag from time to time. For NTFS you likely do
not need it. The speed of the disk drives has nothing to do with it.
The speed of the CPU is also irrelevant.

Arno

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Yep.

I can't recall a setting that allows me to change
the location of folders to be at the start or end.

Yes, it decides what is appropriate for itself.

Even on a 1.8 ghz Celeron with a 7200 rpm 200 GB WD IDE drive?

Yep, the only thing that matters is that its a decent
modern hard drive and a decent modern OS too.

The cpu isnt relevant.

 

[Rod Speed]

It does not. But since NTFS finally is a filesystem, that
is not prone to fragmentation, it is mostly unneeded.

While that is true, I wasnt talking about that.

XP does attempt to organise the system files
on the hard drive to maximise the speed of ops.

For Unix filesystems, there are usually no defragging tools, because
they have not been needed ever. It is a problem mainly of FAT.

If you have FAT, then defrag from time to time.

Not necessary either. Even FAT32 has improved
significantly over time fragmentation wise.

For NTFS you likely do not need it.
Correct.

The speed of the disk drives has nothing to do with it.

Wrong, modern hard drives seek so quickly that the
occasional extra seek between fragments is invisible.

The speed of the CPU is also irrelevant.

Yes.

The OS is relevant tho, particularly with modern OSs that are
moving the heads around a hell of a lot for stuff as basic as
the temporary internet files that a few extra moves due to
file fragmentation are irrelevant.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

It does not. But since NTFS finally is a filesystem, that is not
prone to fragmentation, it is mostly unneeded.

Clueless clueless babblebot, as always.

Placement/location of directories has nothing to do with file fragmentation.

And every filesystem that allows creation and deletion of files is pro-
ne to fragmentation unless you allow that a drive is full when no usable
(contiguous) free space is available anymore, even if that means that
the drive is only half full. At which point you obviously need to de-
fragment the drive to reclaim contiguous free space.

For Unix filesystems, there are usually no defragging tools, because
they have not been needed ever. It is a problem mainly of FAT.

Clueless. Access Time / Sustained Transfer Rate is still deteriorating.