Do disk defraggers check file systems first?
in [Storage]
|
From: Ian D on 6 Oct 2009 12:59 "alfo" <alfo(a)invalid.com> wrote in message news:Xns9C9C913F9263DD4AM2(a)newsfarm.ams2.highwinds-media.com... > In general, do disk defragmenters for Windows XP perform a file > system integrity check (like XP's CHKDSK) before they start moving > data around? > > I'm thinking of defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk as well as > XP's own defragger. Any defrag tools I have used since DOS 3.2 do a file system integrity check, then give an error and stop the defrag if there's a problem. The current one's I use are Diskeeper, and the XP and Vista defragmenters. The error messages aren't very explicit, but a chkdsk /f usually fixes any reported errors.
From: Ato_Zee on 6 Oct 2009 14:22 On 6-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. OP generalised, there are many defraggers, I pointed out that there is no consistency, either within any one of them, it depends on the type of data integrety error, or between how different defraggers handle the problem. One I met compounded the problem, by seemingly duplicating, without resolving, the corruption first. There is no black and white, yes/no answer. No defragger can cope with loss of data integrity on a failing drive. Defragging if of questionable value and the MS$ utility does a fair job. Smart placement is just bells and whistles. Better to spend your money on backup than defragging.
From: sidewinder on 6 Oct 2009 13:46 alfo;1113214 Wrote: > In general, do disk defragmenters for Windows XP perform a file > system integrity check (like XP's CHKDSK) before they start moving > data around? > > I'm thinking of defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk as well as > XP's own defragger. Yes, I believe they do. AFAIK, the windows defrag API developed jointly by Diskeeper (excellent defragger BTW) and Microsoft has provisions for checking the dirty bit on the volume before initiating a defrag. All defraggers that use the API will utilize that. That's why some users get a "Cannot defrag, chkdsk is scheduled to run etc" message when they attempt to defrag a dirty file system. The defraggers themselves don't run any chkdsk scans by default AFAIK, they just check the bit, though some may have the option to do a full chkdsk before each defrag.
From: Joep on 7 Oct 2009 04:08 "Ato_Zee" <ato_zee(a)hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:jVLym.13167$c%7.9371(a)newsfe11.ams2... > > On 6-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available(a)request.nl> wrote: > >> He only asked if defraggers checked a volume prior to moving data. So, >> yes/no will do. > > OP generalised, there are many defraggers, I pointed out that > there is no consistency, either within any one of them, it > depends on the type of data integrety error, or between > how different defraggers handle the problem. He didn't ask for defraggers to fix things. > One I met compounded the problem, by seemingly > duplicating, without resolving, the corruption first. > There is no black and white, yes/no answer. Well, some do/ some don't CHECK. > No defragger can cope with loss of data integrity on > a failing drive. No, that wasn't the question. > Defragging if of questionable value and the MS$ utility > does a fair job. No it isn't Smart placement is just bells and > whistles. No it isn't > Better to spend your money on backup than > defragging. You don't have to spent money on it
From: Ato_Zee on 7 Oct 2009 04:51
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. Commit yourself to yes or no, since you are so concerned with an absolute definitive answer. > > Defragging if of questionable value and the MS$ utility > > does a fair job. > > No it isn't Oh do tell us why > Smart placement is just bells and > > whistles. > > No it isn't So tell us how smart placement makes jobs run faster. 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. |