Is defraging necessary?
in [Windows XP]
|
From: Leythos on 15 May 2010 15:49 In article <E5214409-74FB-4E90-BD58-D55FD009AFED(a)microsoft.com>, databaseben(a)sbcglobal.net says... > But nowadays hard drives > are faster and larger and > fragmentation is no longer > a contributing factor in > performance. > You are really showing why people don't listen to you - while a small amount of file fragmentation will hardly be noticed, massive amounts dramatically impact overall file performance. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Bill in Co. on 15 May 2010 16:14 Unknown wrote: > How can you possibly state that fragmentation is no longer a factor in > performance? The same way that many people thought that Sarah Palin was actually qualified to be Vice President??? (Hint: that's how). > If you ONLY had one fragment, it would add a minimum of 10 MS to a read > operation. > "Db" <databaseben(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:E5214409-74FB-4E90-BD58-D55FD009AFED(a)microsoft.com... >> Defragging a system won't >> do you any harm so you >> should try it and make your >> own determination if it is a >> a worthwhile process. >> >> however, there was a time that >> defrag did improve performance >> for systems that had hard disks >> with limited drive space and >> had slow data access speeds. >> >> But nowadays hard drives >> are faster and larger and >> fragmentation is no longer >> a contributing factor in >> performance. >> >> as the matter of fact, technical >> documentation from microsoft >> pertaining to vista state that >> defragging disk is no longer >> necessary and "does not improve >> system performance". >> >> perhaps, it is because the computer >> turns right around and creates fragments >> of the data that was defrag's >> >> >> however, the quandary exists at >> microsoft because on the one >> hand the technicians have tested >> and made a thorough analysis >> on the ineffectiveness of defragging >> large and faster disks in vista, >> >> but at the same time microsoft >> includes a defragging utility in >> with the o.s. >> >> in any case, everyone has >> unique systems that benefit >> by unique methodologies. >> >> as stated before you can run >> defrag and ascertain a personal >> assessment of performance >> >> or if you born back when American >> culture was factually experiencing >> induced enlightenment, >> >> then you might find unfragmenting >> files to be entertaining. >> >> -- >>>> -- >>>> db���`�...�><)))�> >>>> DatabaseBen, Retired Professional >>>> - Systems Analyst >>>> - Database Developer >>>> - Accountancy >>>> - Veteran of the Armed Forces >>>> - @Hotmail.com >>>> - nntp Postologist >>>> ~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen >>>> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >> "Lisa" <Lisa(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:1AA94818-B553-4478-9F58-668B6F68C348(a)microsoft.com... >>> I was told by a computer repairman that it's not necessary to defrag my >>> laptop. If the hard drive gets full, remove files and always make sure >>> I'm >>> using a virus protection. >>> What are your thoughts?
From: Jim on 16 May 2010 07:20 On Sat, 15 May 2010 14:14:38 -0600, "Bill in Co." <not_really_here(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >Unknown wrote: >> How can you possibly state that fragmentation is no longer a factor in >> performance? > >The same way that many people thought that Sarah Palin was actually >qualified to be Vice President??? (Hint: that's how). Seeing her so much in the news/papers I thought she was ;-) Jim ( UK ) > >> If you ONLY had one fragment, it would add a minimum of 10 MS to a read >> operation. >> "Db" <databaseben(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:E5214409-74FB-4E90-BD58-D55FD009AFED(a)microsoft.com... >>> Defragging a system won't >>> do you any harm so you >>> should try it and make your >>> own determination if it is a >>> a worthwhile process. >>> >>> however, there was a time that >>> defrag did improve performance >>> for systems that had hard disks >>> with limited drive space and >>> had slow data access speeds. >>> >>> But nowadays hard drives >>> are faster and larger and >>> fragmentation is no longer >>> a contributing factor in >>> performance. >>> >>> as the matter of fact, technical >>> documentation from microsoft >>> pertaining to vista state that >>> defragging disk is no longer >>> necessary and "does not improve >>> system performance". >>> >>> perhaps, it is because the computer >>> turns right around and creates fragments >>> of the data that was defrag's >>> >>> >>> however, the quandary exists at >>> microsoft because on the one >>> hand the technicians have tested >>> and made a thorough analysis >>> on the ineffectiveness of defragging >>> large and faster disks in vista, >>> >>> but at the same time microsoft >>> includes a defragging utility in >>> with the o.s. >>> >>> in any case, everyone has >>> unique systems that benefit >>> by unique methodologies. >>> >>> as stated before you can run >>> defrag and ascertain a personal >>> assessment of performance >>> >>> or if you born back when American >>> culture was factually experiencing >>> induced enlightenment, >>> >>> then you might find unfragmenting >>> files to be entertaining. >>> >>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> db���`�...�><)))�> >>>>> DatabaseBen, Retired Professional >>>>> - Systems Analyst >>>>> - Database Developer >>>>> - Accountancy >>>>> - Veteran of the Armed Forces >>>>> - @Hotmail.com >>>>> - nntp Postologist >>>>> ~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen >>>>> >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> >>> "Lisa" <Lisa(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >>> news:1AA94818-B553-4478-9F58-668B6F68C348(a)microsoft.com... >>>> I was told by a computer repairman that it's not necessary to defrag my >>>> laptop. If the hard drive gets full, remove files and always make sure >>>> I'm >>>> using a virus protection. >>>> What are your thoughts? >
From: HeyBub on 16 May 2010 14:27 Leythos wrote: > In article <#1wndj28KHA.3176(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, heybub(a)gmail.com > says... >> >> Lisa wrote: >>> I was told by a computer repairman that it's not necessary to defrag >>> my laptop. If the hard drive gets full, remove files and always >>> make sure I'm using a virus protection. >>> What are your thoughts? >> >> I can envision a situation in a data center with hundreds of >> thousands of transactions per minute where defragging may be of some >> slight benefit (assuming an NTFS file system). >> >> I can also imagine a user devoted to daily defragging experiencing a >> power interruption during a critical directory manipulation process. > > On a small computer with many add/delete/grow/shrink operations, > defrag can significantly impact file access times and can be very > noticeable to users if their system was badly file fragmented before > the defrag. > > White-Space fragmention is not normally an issue, but a file that is > fragmented into 8000 parts will have an impact on system performance. > > This argument has gone on for decades, but it's the people that > maintain systems across many areas that know the benefits of defrag. Ignorance can be fixed - hence the original question. It's knowing something that is false that's the bigger problem. Considering your example of 8,000 segments, consider: A minimum segment size of 4096 bytes implies a minimum of 32 meg file. A FAT-32 system requires a minimum of 16,000 head movements to gather all the pieces. In this case, with an average access time of 12msec, you'll spend over six minutes just moving the head around. Factor in rotational delay to bring the track marker under the head, then rotational delay to find the sector, and so on, you're up to ten minutes or so to read the file. An NTFS system will suck up the file with ONE head movement. You still have the rotational delays and so forth, but NTFS will cut the six minutes off the slurp-up time. De-fragging an NTFS system DOES have its uses: For those who dust the inside covers of the books on their shelves and weekly scour the inside of the toilet water tank, a sense of satisfaction infuses their very being after a successful operation. I personally think Prozac is cheaper, but to each his own.
From: HeyBub on 16 May 2010 14:31
hello(a)goodbye.com wrote: > > Why would anyone NOT defrag? It's so easy to do, and its something > you can start doing before dinner, or before going to bed. By the > time you're done eating, or wake up, it's finished. > > NOT defragging slows down your computer. Reduced efficiency is not easily detectable or significant on a heavily-fragmented NTFS drive. > NOT defragging makes your hard drive work harder, and wears it out > sooner. Nope. The head moves ONE time irrespective of the number of fragments (on an NTFS drive). > NOT defragging makes it harder to retrieve data in the event a hard > drive begins to fail. That IS true. > > The more often you delete files or move them, the more often you > should defrag. Yes. Heavy users could possibly detect some benefit with a sheduled defrag every couple of years or so. Ordinary user, perhaps every decade. > Browsers in particular clutter drives with cache > files. Always clear the cache before defragging. > > Whoever told you this is an idiot !!! |