What's the best free disk defragger, not in Windows, for NTFS and FAT drives/partitions?
in [Storage]
|
Prev: My 128 GB flash drive is not working
Next: What's the best free disk defragger, not in Windows, for NTFSand FAT drives/partitions?
From: Bilky White on 15 Dec 2009 06:26 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7op1bdF3r6cc0U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > unless the user > can detect the difference that defragging makes, there isnt any point in > doing it. > Wise words. And that is also why you should never bother to change the oil in your car engine either.
From: Bilky White on 15 Dec 2009 08:27 "David Brown" <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message news:4b278631$0$3882$8404b019(a)news.wineasy.se... > > Oil changes /do/ make user-detectable changes, albeit over a long time. > Defragging doesn't, no matter how long you leave it - except perhaps in > that the increased wear and tear on the disk due to unnecessary defragging > may lower its lifetime. Thanks David, I just enjoy yanking Rod's chain from time to time, keep him on his toes :)
From: mscotgrove on 15 Dec 2009 09:47 On Dec 15, 12:48 pm, David Brown <da...(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > mscotgr...(a)aol.com wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > It is no excuse not to backup a drive, but recovery of a corrupted or > > damaged drive can often be easier if the files are not fragmented. > > I think the word "often" here is a gross exaggeration. It is > conceivable that a professional recovery service will find it marginally > easier to recover non-fragmented files, but that's about it. > > In the good old days of small drives, few files, and plain text formats > then your argument might hold water when piecing together a lost file > from individual disk sectors. > > > > > The files that often get very fragmented are ones that grow, such as e- > > mail inboxes, and documents/spread sheets that have been worked on a > > lot. These are often viewed as very importat files to recover. > > > Do an occasional defrag, and a very regular backup. > > > Michael- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If the FATs are lost all fragmentation information is also lost. If the MFT has been overwritten, or lost, then all fragmentation is also lost. On a large fragmented disk, a large file can have many fragments - a few hundred for e-mail files. These are not easy to join together by hand, or by program. About 1/3rd of my data recovery jobs do require a raw recovery mode where there is no fragment information available. The automatic recovery rate on non defragged drives does decrease. Data recovery is not a subsitute for good backups. Anything to make it easier is worth an occasional defrag. Michael www.cnwrecovery.com
From: Rod Speed on 15 Dec 2009 14:03 mscotgrove(a)aol.com wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote >> David Brown wrote >>> Cronos wrote >>>> David Brown wrote >>>>> "Microsoft disagrees with you" is as good an argument as "Kermit >>>>> the Frog disagrees with you". There are so many bad choices for >>>>> defaults in Windows that this is absolutely no indication that >>>>> defragging is useful in general, or useful on a regular basis. >>>> But Microsoft is not Kermit the frog and have many very smart >>>> people working for them so I think it might be prudent to give >>>> them some credibility instead of discounting them without >>>> understanding why they have it set to auto defrag once per week. >>>> My guess is they do that because to do it once a week means it is >>>> far quicker to keep the HDDs defragged than doing it once every >>>> few months. >>> Respect and credibility is something a person or company must work >>> hard to earn, and can quickly loose. MS has worked long and hard to >>> ensure they have as little credibility with technically >>> knowledgeable people as they possibly can. >>> I am /not/ saying that they are always wrong. But you must be very >>> na�ve to assume that what they say is right, without looking for >>> independent confirmation or proof. >>> It is generally true that defragging will be faster if the last time >>> you ran it was a week ago rather than two months ago. But the total >>> time wasted on weekly defrags over those two months is much more >>> than the time wasted for a single defrag once every two months. But >>> whether you do it once a week or every second month, it is still >>> wasted time. >>> You wanted to know the reason newer Windows defaults to auto >>> defragging once a week? It's because lots of people, such as >>> yourself, assume that this is a "new feature" - another "reason" for >>> "upgrading" to Vista / Windows 7. Companies like DiskKeeper have >>> done a great false advertising job persuading people that they need >>> scheduled defragmenters - MS is simply cashing in on their marketing. >> Nope, the fools that decide the defaults cant grasp the basics, that >> unless the user can detect the difference that defragging makes, >> there isnt any point in doing it. > It is no excuse not to backup a drive, but recovery of a corrupted > or damaged drive can often be easier if the files are not fragmented. Makes a hell of a lot more sense to backup instead of defrag, stupid. > The files that often get very fragmented are ones that grow, such as > e- mail inboxes, and documents/spread sheets that have been worked > on a lot. These are often viewed as very importat files to recover. > Do an occasional defrag, and a very regular backup. Makes a hell of a lot more sense to backup instead of defrag, stupid.
From: Rod Speed on 15 Dec 2009 14:05
mscotgrove(a)aol.com wrote: > On Dec 15, 12:48 pm, David Brown <da...(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> > wrote: >> mscotgr...(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> >> >>> It is no excuse not to backup a drive, but recovery of a corrupted >>> or damaged drive can often be easier if the files are not >>> fragmented. >> >> I think the word "often" here is a gross exaggeration. It is >> conceivable that a professional recovery service will find it >> marginally easier to recover non-fragmented files, but that's about >> it. >> >> In the good old days of small drives, few files, and plain text >> formats then your argument might hold water when piecing together a >> lost file from individual disk sectors. >> >> >> >>> The files that often get very fragmented are ones that grow, such >>> as e- mail inboxes, and documents/spread sheets that have been >>> worked on a lot. These are often viewed as very importat files to >>> recover. >> >>> Do an occasional defrag, and a very regular backup. >> >>> Michael- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > If the FATs are lost all fragmentation information is also lost. > > If the MFT has been overwritten, or lost, then all fragmentation is > also lost. > > On a large fragmented disk, a large file can have many fragments - a > few hundred for e-mail files. These are not easy to join together by > hand, or by program. > > About 1/3rd of my data recovery jobs do require a raw recovery mode > where there is no fragment information available. The automatic > recovery rate on non defragged drives does decrease. > > Data recovery is not a subsitute for good backups. Anything to make > it easier is worth an occasional defrag. Makes a hell of a lot more sense to backup instead of defrag, stupid. |