Do disk defraggers check file systems first?
in [Storage]
|
From: Joep on 12 Oct 2009 03:02 "Ato_Zee" <ato_zee(a)hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:ZhtAm.64105$qM1.56073(a)newsfe19.ams2... > > On 11-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available(a)request.nl> wrote: > >> People I know turn off the PC at the end >> of the day, and then when they turn it back on next day they're annoyed >> by >> the huge amount of time it takes to start up Windows. > > That is not due to fragmentation, it is due to the number of processes > and services to be started. No, because if I optimize this file system it starts quicker. So I load the same amount of services, change one parameter namely the location of the files on the disk, and it loads faster. > By your argument a heavily used machine would be so fragmented > and slowed down by it to be unuseable by lunchtime. > You are trying to convince everyone to defrag several times a day. No I am not. Biggest gain is from optimization (file placement) and I do that every few months. > Fragmentation wasn't an issue in the days of CP/M and isn't > today. It still is an issue > You don't have to defrag TB drives every few hours. I agree.
From: alfo on 12 Oct 2009 03:50 On 13:58 11 Oct 2009, Joep wrote: > "alfo" <alfo(a)invalid.com> schreef in bericht > news:Xns9CA17F8E16206D4AM2(a)newsfarm.ams2.highwinds-media.com... >>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Of course it has. He's possibly afraid a defragger may >>> corrupt a file system in inconsistent state. That's something >>> entirely different than asking a defragger to fix corruption. >>> >> >> Hello Joep. I'm the OP. I want to avoid making the data in my >> partitons inaccessible by defragging if the defragger did not >> ensure file system integrity before it started work. >> > > That was that I figured. > >> FWIW I use PerfectDisk (it's now at v.10 but I use v.7). >> >> Out of interest, does DiskTune do all the checking which >> Checkdsk does? > > Nope. Orginally I did, check if dirty bit was set (using > chkdsk), but I figured that it was wiser to have chkdsk do the > repair instead of suggesting that it was DiskTune doing the > fixing of the file system. Currently I only check the dirty bit > (I think thats what the Vista defragger does as well). However, > defragging using the defrag API is harmless even if file system > is dirty. > Hello Joep. I should say I'm sorry for being ambiguous for writing "Checkdsk and "Diskchk" when I meant "Dskchk". I have 2 questions. (1) Is the XP dirty bit set by events like a Dskchk and when the system encounters a problem in accessing data? If so then it must mean the dirty bit is not set if the system is unaware of a problem. (2) By a "dirty" file system do you mean (a) one in which the dirty bit has been set or do you mean (b) one in which the file system is corrupt and the dirty bit may or may not have been set? IYSWIM. I'm trying to find my way forward to understand how using the defrag APIs can be harmless even if the file system is compromised.
From: Rod Speed on 12 Oct 2009 05:02 Joep wrote > Ato_Zee <ato_zee(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> Joep <available(a)request.nl> wrote >>> People I know turn off the PC at the end of the day, and then when they turn it back on next day they're annoyed by >>> the huge amount of time it takes to start up Windows. >> That is not due to fragmentation, it is due to the number of processes and services to be started. > No, because if I optimize this file system it starts quicker. Easy to claim. You cant actually substantiate that claim. > So I load the same amount of services, change one parameter namely the location of the files on the disk, and it loads > faster. Easy to claim. You cant actually substantiate that claim. >> By your argument a heavily used machine would be so fragmented >> and slowed down by it to be unuseable by lunchtime. >> You are trying to convince everyone to defrag several times a day. > No I am not. Biggest gain is from optimization (file placement) and I > do that every few months. >> Fragmentation wasn't an issue in the days of CP/M and isn't today. > It still is an issue Easy to claim. You cant actually substantiate that claim.
From: Joep on 12 Oct 2009 07:05 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:7jg9l1F356tbgU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Joep wrote >> Ato_Zee <ato_zee(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>> Joep <available(a)request.nl> wrote > >>>> People I know turn off the PC at the end of the day, and then when they >>>> turn it back on next day they're annoyed by the huge amount of time it >>>> takes to start up Windows. > >>> That is not due to fragmentation, it is due to the number of processes >>> and services to be started. > >> No, because if I optimize this file system it starts quicker. > > Easy to claim. You cant actually substantiate that claim. > >> So I load the same amount of services, change one parameter namely the >> location of the files on the disk, and it loads faster. > > Easy to claim. You cant actually substantiate that claim. > >>> By your argument a heavily used machine would be so fragmented >>> and slowed down by it to be unuseable by lunchtime. > >>> You are trying to convince everyone to defrag several times a day. > >> No I am not. Biggest gain is from optimization (file placement) and I >> do that every few months. > >>> Fragmentation wasn't an issue in the days of CP/M and isn't today. > >> It still is an issue > > Easy to claim. You cant actually substantiate that claim. No actually it isn't, just try it for yourself. > > >
From: Ato_Zee on 12 Oct 2009 10:01
On 12-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available(a)request.nl> wrote: > >>> Fragmentation wasn't an issue in the days of CP/M and isn't today. > > > >> It still is an issue > > > > Easy to claim. You cant actually substantiate that claim. > > No actually it isn't, just try it for yourself. I have, defragging makes no discernable difference. It's juat that a lot of people are making a lot of money out of defragging utilities, and pretending to be experts to make money as computer consultants and repairers. Hospitals, universities, most businesses, don't routinely defrag, and their computers run perfectly well without it. Manual front office operations continuously process orders, holiday bookings, customer queries and help desk operations, they aren't defragging all the time their systems run perfectly well without it. If you want to permanently boost performance then go through system services one by one, many that start automatically aren't really needed and should be stopped, or set to start "on use". Then go through apps that start on boot, followed by reducing the startup delay timers, like the one that waits to see if you want to start in safe mode. You are a Snake Oil peddler with your exagerated claims of a dramatic performance boost. Even LanParty and online gamers continuously shifting screens of graphics and large volumes of data don't keep defragging all the time. |