M
Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
Gordon said:
Err there is no loss of performance Err. Or, Err, there might be. Err,
depending Err on what you Err are looking for. Err.
Err there is no loss of performance Err. Or, Err, there might be. Err,
depending Err on what you Err are looking for. Err.
M
Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
Gordon said:
Err - You just might be right, Err. If Err, there is no default setting
then, Err, you don't need to worry about it. Err.
B
Bill Daggett
JamesJ said:
I'm not contesting that. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to even
bring up that possibility when you start to see your system "slow"
down. It once was fast enough... right? So the hardware is fine.
J
JamesJ
Got it.
James
James
Bill Daggett said:
R
ray
I most certainly DO have it. And I did not mention Ubuntu until YOU
brought it up. I was merely making the point that in the 21st century a
properly designed file system does not need continual defragging to
maintain responsive performance. Please explain how that is 'pushing'
Ubuntu.
B
+Bob+
Inaccurate. On some systems it makes a tremendous difference. It
depends entirely on how much activity (add/delete) the disk drive
sees.
B
+Bob+
Yes there is. It's a noticeable thrashing of the drive. When you start
a foreground program and the disk is being thrashed by the defrag, you
can see a noticeable delay.
Not to mention, it's notoriously inefficient. Go to any system running
the background defrag. Run a defrag on it. Notice how long it has to
run, even though it's supposedly defragged.
B
+Bob+
MS started claiming when NT came out that NTFS did not need to be
defragged. Actual performance measurement proved them incorrect
J
JamesJ
In my case you're right.
I find myself trying alot of shareware which 5% of I might end up using
extensively. Although this probably isn't a very gpood idea (with spyware
and
the like) I do a lot of uninstalling of the shareware I don't want. So, I'm
pobably responable
for some of the system slow downs.
James
I find myself trying alot of shareware which 5% of I might end up using
extensively. Although this probably isn't a very gpood idea (with spyware
and
the like) I do a lot of uninstalling of the shareware I don't want. So, I'm
pobably responable
for some of the system slow downs.
James
R
ray
There are not dozens. There are a few. I've never known anyone to use
them.
D
Dave Warren
In message <[email protected]> +Bob+
Vista's defragmentation tool only works while the system is idle, both
by way of a backoff algorithm, and also the disk queuing system.
There is virtually no risk at all with a modern defragmentation tool
using Windows' NTFS defragmation APIs. When a cluster is moved, there
are several steps, each of which is journaled so at no point will a
failure or interruption cause corruption or data loss.
Vista's defragmentation tool only works while the system is idle, both
by way of a backoff algorithm, and also the disk queuing system.
There is virtually no risk at all with a modern defragmentation tool
using Windows' NTFS defragmation APIs. When a cluster is moved, there
are several steps, each of which is journaled so at no point will a
failure or interruption cause corruption or data loss.
B
+Bob+
If there's a power failure or crash, you can easily end up with
errors. Not to mention, Vista already has all sorts of verified issues
with the file system (performance; refusing to acknowledge changes
without a reboot, etc). Adding another level of risk to it seems like
a very poor idea.
R
ray
Yes frankie they exist. If you do a web search you might actually be able
to find some. The ones of which I am aware defragment ext2 file systems.
I've never heard of one for a more modern fs such as reiser. You will
also find that NO SIGNIFICANT Linux distribution includes a
defragmentation tool in it's base installation. It must not be very
necessary.
Just for grins, do a web search for 'defragmentation Linux' - most of
what you will find are explnations of why Linux does not need it.
R
ray
And ext3 is merely ext2 with journaling. As I said, none for modern fs
such as reiser et. al.
A
Ashton Crusher
Well, if you think that's a risk worth worrying about then no one
should ever install any programs on their computer since program
installs trash far more systems then a background defrager ever has.
If you run the built in defrag as it's intended it simply is always
doing little bits of clean up and there is no need for it to take over
the system like the store bought ones do so that people can look at
the pretty little squares changing colors - been there, did that, am
over it.
G
Gordon
+Bob+ said:
Not inaccurate at all. In general, most users will notice only very slight
improvements by defragging.
Speed depends on many factors of which an unfragged HDD is a very small
one...
G
Gordon
+Bob+ said:
Rubbish. Never noticed that AT ALL.
<sigh> WHY? WHY even BOTHER to run a manual defrag if it's doing it FOR you
automatically? If it ain't broke DON'T FIX IT!!!!!!!
M
Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
Gordon said:
Err - Because he wants to. Err. <sigh>
M
Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
Gordon said:
Err <sigh> you don't know what most users will notice unless Err <sigh>
you spoke with most users. Err <sigh>
M
mazorj
Ashton Crusher said:
Practically speaking, just running a defrag on a set schedule and
preferably when you won't be using it is the best advice. I do that
with my various back-ups and security sweeps.
However, there's more information in these other defrag programs than
watching the lights blink, such as listing files that won't defrag.
When hiberfil.sys came up on a manual defrag of my laptop as a file
that could not be defragged, I deleted it and recovered quite a bit of
space. I had hibernation turned off but didn't realize that it
already had created a whopping useless file. Deleting it also allowed
the defragger to pack more files into the first band of written
clusters. I'm sure the performance increase was trivial, but the
recovered space on a relatively small laptop HD was worth doing.
Seeing the list of undefraggable files also taught me that in order to
squeeze the absolute most out of defragging, shut down every (and I do
mean every) other app before defragging. An open program can put a
hold on auxiliary files it creates while running and the defragger
won't touch them. Again, the effect is small but if you're not using
the computer, why not shut down everything?
Perusing the other undefraggable/unmovable files and the pretty
squares also can be instructive as to what's happening "under the
hood". For example, most writes are done in two bands, one starting
at the beginning of the HD, and another band starting at about the
middle of the drive. This must be a deliberate write strategy.
Otherwise, used clusters would be randomly strewn across the drive.
I've also backtracked undefraggable/unmovable files to one or two
resource-consuming processes that I didn't need and could be
terminated.