Is defraging necessary?
in [Windows XP]
|
From: Twayne on 19 May 2010 14:35 In news:4bf2e578$0$22941$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl, Erwin Moller <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much(a)spamyourself.com> typed: > 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` I know what you mean, Erwin. Sometimes there's an excuse for it such as they just don't know better, but even then they have to be urged to pay attention to the details. Luck, Twayne` |