Follow up to defrag validity discussion: please read
in [Storage]
|
Prev: Samsung HD753lj external drive- computer does'nt see
Next: Hands-on with the ioSafe Solo external hard drive
From: Rod Speed on 11 Jan 2010 03:30 David Brown wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> David Brown wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> You can certainly make a case that defragging in the background >>>> when nothing else is being done does no harm, but its still >>>> pointless when it only benefits a few situations like file copying >>>> which is much better not done in the first place. >>> /I/ know that. But for people unconvinced by the sort of reasoning >>> seen in this thread, doing their own testing and timing is the only >>> way for them to see the reality of fragmentation. >> Thats overstating it too. All but the silliest would likely be convinved by proper documented tests that someone else >> does and those that wont likely wont be convinced by their own tests anyway or even be capable >> of organising them, particularly with deliberately fragmenting a system. >> In other words it doesnt have to be on their own personal system. > Cronos' big trouble, as I understand it, is that he is reading here > that defragging has so little effect it is very seldom worth the > effort, and elsewhere he is reading that it is absolutely essential. The main problem is that he cant actually work out who knows what they are talking about and claims some of those fools are 'industry experts' when they are in fact nothing of the kind when they cant even manage to implement a viable database. > I'm not sure that /anyone/ is doing much in the way of "properly documented tests" Sometimes some do. > - people like you and me are not interested in wasting the time and effort needed to produce a statistically valid > result. Yes, but that does not mean that anything has to be done on his system. > However, it is worth noting that the people who really /do/ have an interest in producing such test results - the > commercial defrag developers - have also failed to provide anything remotely like a properly documented and repeatable > test setup showing the benefits of defragging. I doubt he has enough of a clue to work out what that means. > The fact that they have not produced anything other than numbers that seem to come out of a hat suggests > that their numbers do, in fact, simply come out of a hat. I doubt he has enough of a clue to work out that either. There's a reason no one has actually been stupid enough to employ him in any technical area. > Absence of proof may not be proof of absence, but in this case it comes very close. It does indeed.
From: Cronos on 11 Jan 2010 10:22 Rod Speed wrote: > > I doubt he has enough of a clue to work out what that means. > I doubt he has enough of a clue to work out that either. > > There's a reason no one has actually been stupid enough to employ him in any technical area. > It does indeed. > > Never thought I would come across anyone more of a prick than old Scrooge but here we have just that. You bitter old man!!!
From: Bilky White on 11 Jan 2010 11:12 "Cronos" <cronos(a)sphere.invalid> wrote in message news:hiffnu$puh$3(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > Never thought I would come across anyone more of a prick than old Scrooge > but here we have just that. You bitter old man!!! Welcome to RodWorld :)
From: David Brown on 11 Jan 2010 16:23 Ed Light wrote: > On 1/11/2010 12:22 AM, David Brown wrote: > >> I'm not sure that /anyone/ is doing much in the way of "properly >> documented tests" > > Find someone who hasn't defragged for a year and has apps that open lots > of really big files (100 MB +) at once, files that change alot. > > Time the Windows boot, and the opening of each app. > > Defrag it. > > Time again. > If there is one timing obsession I find harder to comprehend than others, it's boot time. Maybe I'm unusual, but since I left DOS and Win3.1 behind, I rarely restart my machines. Even when I do, I really couldn't care less if bootup takes 50 seconds or 70 seconds. So while such a test may conceivably show that defragging makes a /measurable/ difference to the bootup time, it could not show that it makes a /noticeable/ or /relevant/ difference. > I can do this in a few months. Don't know if this thread will be here. > > If I remember, I'll post it in a new thread. > If you can be bothered doing this, then I'm sure I'll read the thread. > I was convinced that my yearly defragging made a big difference, but > I'll have to take another look at it. > > PS Defragging with jkdefrag GUI with debug level set to detailed file > information and Action set to Analyze, defragment and fast optimization, > you can see big files in fragments, and which file it is. You can set > the speed to something less than 100% so it happens slow enough to study. > Maybe I'll try it sometime - watching a defragger can be hypnotic fun! > What strikes me is that it can whip through a bunch of large files but > plods through itty bitty ones. > > No need to explain it to me. OK.
From: Cronos on 12 Jan 2010 03:05
Ed Light wrote: > jkdefrag GUI is great too. You can set the speed to less than 100% if > you want. The "blocks" are very fine grained, down to pixels, really. I used that one a long time ago but not recently. |