Is defraging necessary?
in [Windows XP]
|
From: Leythos on 18 May 2010 08:38 In article <4bf264cb$0$22917$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl>, Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much(a)spamyourself.com says... > I have seen serious performance improvements (on both FAT32 and NTFS) > after defragging (also the systemfiles with > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx) > > Others claim the same. How do you explain that? > My guess is that he's either a troll or some kid in school that has no friends so he has to pretend to know something here. -- 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: Twayne on 18 May 2010 12:01 In news:OJs07Hc9KHA.5476(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl, Bob I <birelan(a)yahoo.com> typed: > Brian V wrote: > >> What about defragmentation with a RAID system? Doesn't >> this system eliminate file defragmentation? I am under the >> impression that it is two copies of everything (one on >> each drive), it is a faster (and ??more stable system??) >> and more reliable system? > > RAID 0 is nothing more than Mirrored Drives, it won't be > faster or more stable, only provides a identical copy in > the event a harddrive fails. Jeez, quit guessing at what you "think" are the facts, dummy! A RAID 0 (also known as a stripe set or striped volume) splits data evenly across two or more disks (striped) with no parity information for redundancy. It is important to note that RAID 0 was not one of the original RAID levels and provides no data redundancy. RAID 0 is normally used to increase performance, although it can also be used as a way to create a small number of large virtual disks out of a large number of small physical ones.
From: Twayne on 18 May 2010 12:13 In news:4bf264cb$0$22917$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl, Erwin Moller <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much(a)spamyourself.com> typed: .... >> >> 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. > > Hi Heybub, > > This is the second time I hear you claiming this. > How do you 'envision' the head(s) reading all fragments in > one go? > In your example: 8000 fragments. If these are scattered all > over the place, the head has to read a lot of different places > before all info is in. Compare this to one continuous > sequential set of data where the head reads all without extra seeking > and/or skipping parts. > > Also, and especially on systems that need a huge swapfile, > after filling up your HD a few times can lead to heavily fragmented > swapfile. This gives a performance penalty. > > I have seen serious performance improvements (on both FAT32 > and NTFS) after defragging (also the systemfiles with > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx) > > Others claim the same. How do you explain that? > > Erwin Moller > > .... Remember, this is the guy who can suspend all laws of physics at his will. There are a couple such people here in fact. It works for him because the heads are "magnetic" and so are the data. But the head has a super-magnetic mode: So, the head just comes down and sucks up all the data it needs from the disk in one fell swoop. It can tell which ones to slurp up by the arrangement of the magnetic field on the disk; so when the head goes super-magnetic, it's only for those data parts that are of the right polarity; the head just has to sit the until they all collect on it, and then it moves them over to RAM to be used.! Sounds pretty simple to me! lol! HTH, Twayne`
From: Twayne on 18 May 2010 12:16 In news:MPG.265c543da821451098a386(a)us.news.astraweb.com, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> typed: > In article <4bf264cb$0$22917$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl>, > Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much(a)spamyourself.com > says... >> I have seen serious performance improvements (on both >> FAT32 and NTFS) after defragging (also the systemfiles with >> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx) >> >> Others claim the same. How do you explain that? >> > > My guess is that he's either a troll or some kid in school > that has no friends so he has to pretend to know something > here. You may be right, but recall also that there is always the "little knowledge is dangerous" thing too. e.g. if RAID is used for data redundancy was taught in school, then RAID 0 is just one of those schemes. He may not have yet noticed that this is a world of generalities, but very, very specific generalities that don't intuitively cover all cases. HTH, Twayne`
From: Erwin Moller on 18 May 2010 15:07
Twayne schreef: > In news:4bf264cb$0$22917$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl, > Erwin Moller <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much(a)spamyourself.com> > typed: > ... > >>> 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. >> Hi Heybub, >> >> This is the second time I hear you claiming this. >> How do you 'envision' the head(s) reading all fragments in >> one go? >> In your example: 8000 fragments. If these are scattered all >> over the place, the head has to read a lot of different places >> before all info is in. Compare this to one continuous >> sequential set of data where the head reads all without extra seeking >> and/or skipping parts. >> >> Also, and especially on systems that need a huge swapfile, >> after filling up your HD a few times can lead to heavily fragmented >> swapfile. This gives a performance penalty. >> >> I have seen serious performance improvements (on both FAT32 >> and NTFS) after defragging (also the systemfiles with >> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx) >> >> Others claim the same. How do you explain that? >> >> Erwin Moller >> >> > ... > > Remember, this is the guy who can suspend all laws of physics at his will. > There are a couple such people here in fact. It works for him because the > heads are "magnetic" and so are the data. But the head has a super-magnetic > mode: So, the head just comes down and sucks up all the data it needs from > the disk in one fell swoop. It can tell which ones to slurp up by the > arrangement of the magnetic field on the disk; so when the head goes > super-magnetic, it's only for those data parts that are of the right > polarity; the head just has to sit the until they all collect on it, and > then it moves them over to RAM to be used.! > Sounds pretty simple to me! lol! LOL, thanks for that excellent explanation. ;-) I always find it difficult when to respond and when not. In cases I feel I see serious misinformation, like here with Heybub, I feel sorry for people who don't know that, and subsequentially take that kind of advice seriously. Ah well, that is how usenet was, is, and probably always will be. ;-) Regards, Erwin Moller > > HTH, > > Twayne` > > -- "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." -- C.A.R. Hoare |