Do disk defraggers check file systems first?
in [Storage]
|
From: Joep on 7 Oct 2009 05:47 "Ato_Zee" <ato_zee(a)hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:JEYym.14389$Xz6.8172(a)newsfe18.ams2... > > On 7-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available(a)request.nl> wrote: > >> >> He only asked if defraggers checked a volume prior to moving data. So, >> >> yes/no will do. > > You can only say yes or no for a specific defragger, but not > for defraggers as a generalisation. > >> He didn't ask for defraggers to fix things. > > If OP is not interested in fixing things the query has no > meaning. Concern about checking the volume implies > concern about data integrity. > >> Well, some do/ some don't CHECK. > > As I said there is no yes/no answer. > >> > No defragger can cope with loss of data integrity on >> > a failing drive. >> >> No, that wasn't the question. > > So you are suggesting that we say that all defraggers > check the volume for integrity before defragging. No, I am not suggesting that. > > Commit yourself to yes or no, since you are so > concerned with an absolute definitive answer. It's not about a definitive answer at all. > >> > Defragging if of questionable value and the MS$ utility >> > does a fair job. >> >> No it isn't > > Oh do tell us why Why? > >> Smart placement is just bells and >> > whistles. >> >> No it isn't > > So tell us how smart placement makes jobs > run faster. Define 'jobs' > I have yet to see any improvement in processing > time for processor intensive jobs as a result > of Smart Placement. > Performance is more a hardware issue than where > the data is on the drive. > >> > Better to spend your money on backup than >> > defragging. >> >> You don't have to spent money on it > > But some utilities make life easier. > And in order to backup you have to spend money > on one or more backup drives, or on optical > media. What makes you think you don't have > to spend money? Perhaps you are one of those > who relies on a recovery partition, then comes here > asking what do I do, my drive has failed. I am saying that a defragger that goes beyond that MS bult in defraggers don"t have to cost money. Your problem is, that you can't read and that makes this discussion useless.
From: Ato_Zee on 7 Oct 2009 11:20 On 7-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available(a)request.nl> wrote: > >> Smart placement is just bells and > >> > whistles. > >> > >> No it isn't It is bells and whistles because it only benefits the defragger by placing infrequently changed or accessed files at the start of the drive, in non-fragmented blocks. Where they do not get fragmented, so do net repeatedly have to be defraged at each defragmentation cycle. The free MS utility does an adequate job. System performance is a hardware issue, Drive cache size, spin speed, access time, pagefile optimisation, and a few other variables. Try a few tests for yourself on drives that have only been defraged with the MS utility, and then on drives that have been detraged with one of the cited utilities that has Smart Placement. > I am saying that a defragger that goes beyond that >MS bult in defraggers > don"t have to cost money. And is unlikely to yield any performance improvement, stick with the MS one and invest in backup media. Better use of your money.
From: Joep on 9 Oct 2009 03:35 "Ato_Zee" <ato_zee(a)hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:%k2zm.23682$301.19455(a)newsfe14.ams2... > > On 7-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available(a)request.nl> wrote: > >> >> Smart placement is just bells and >> >> > whistles. >> >> >> >> No it isn't > > It is bells and whistles because it only benefits the > defragger by placing infrequently changed or accessed > files at the start of the drive, in non-fragmented > blocks. huh? infrequently used files at the start of the drive? > Where they do not get fragmented, so do > net repeatedly have to be defraged at each > defragmentation cycle. > The free MS utility does an adequate job. > > System performance is a hardware issue, > Drive cache size, spin speed, access time, > pagefile optimisation, and a few other variables. Like fragmentation and placement on disk > Try a few tests for yourself on drives that have > only been defraged with the MS utility, and > then on drives that have been detraged with > one of the cited utilities that has Smart Placement. Done that > >> I am saying that a defragger that goes beyond that >>MS bult in defraggers >> don"t have to cost money. > > And is unlikely to yield any performance improvement, And thats where you are wrong > stick with the MS one and invest in backup media. > Better use of your money. The money isn't an issue as stated before because there are free ones.
From: Ato_Zee on 9 Oct 2009 04:59 On 9-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available(a)request.nl> wrote: > > System performance is a hardware issue, > > Drive cache size, spin speed, access time, > > pagefile optimisation, and a few other variables. > > Like fragmentation and placement on disk Not so, the drive can more than adequately cope with fragmentation. With adequate RAM drive access is not an issue. Just check your page faults with an MS defrag optimised drive versus one with Smart Placement, no difference. No difference either in Sandra benchmarks. > > stick with the MS one and invest in backup media. > > Better use of your money. > > The money isn't an issue as stated before because > there are free ones. Free media?
From: Joep on 9 Oct 2009 05:54
"Ato_Zee" <ato_zee(a)hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:dYCzm.30681$qM1.19339(a)newsfe19.ams2... > > On 9-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available(a)request.nl> wrote: > >> > System performance is a hardware issue, >> > Drive cache size, spin speed, access time, >> > pagefile optimisation, and a few other variables. >> >> Like fragmentation and placement on disk > > Not so, the drive can more than adequately cope > with fragmentation. Ah, so a drive copes with fragmentation itself? > With adequate RAM drive > access is not an issue. At one point a file has to be read from disk /written to disk. No matter the amount of memory a fragmented file will take longer than an unfragmented file placed near the start of the disk. > Just check your > page faults with an MS defrag optimised drive > versus one with Smart Placement, no difference. File fragmentation is not limited to paging. It is unclear to me what you're trying to argue here. You're constantly mixing things up. See where you got us from the simple question 'do defraggers check the file system' all the way here. |