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: Rod Speed on 16 Dec 2009 13:14 Trent wrote: > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:20:51 -0000 "Bilky White" <q(a)w.com> wrote in > Message id: <4b28c265$1_1(a)glkas0286.greenlnk.net>: > >> Roddy boy knows his stuff all right > > Sometimes. Maybe. He still doesn't know what happens if you connect a hard > drives #RESET signal to GND, then power it up. He'll throw a tantrum if you call him on it. You're the only one throwing tantrums, child.
From: Rod Speed on 16 Dec 2009 15:14 Cronos wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> 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. > Can you visually detect when one jet is doing 400 knots and the other is doing 450 knots? Irrelevant to whether defragging is worth doing with the vast bulk of modern systems. > Your theory is like Swiss cheese. What you have between the ears in spades.
From: Rod Speed on 16 Dec 2009 15:16 Cronos wrote: > Bob Willard wrote: > >> I can imagine nasty combinations of workloads and platforms that >> would make defragging helpful, but they must be really rare now. >> >> In a former life (~15 years ago), doing backup from HD=>tape, it was >> obvious that defragging before starting a backup kept the tape mostly >> streaming, while skipping the defrag step led to a lot of >> shoe-shining. That system was a 486/33 with 4MB of RAM, running Win >> 3.1, with a 3600 RPM non-DMA FAT16 HD, and a QIC (definitely not >> quick) tape connected over a shared parallel port; and, the >> (Colorado) backup software was very primitive. >> >> In that era, I used to say that any mag.tape had only two speeds: >> "It streams or it sucks". >> >> Over the past dozen or so years, I've never been able to notice any >> performance gain due to defragging, which is why I always recommend >> using a defragger which is free: either none, or whatever is bundled >> with the OS. > > Just because your eyes don't visually detect the difference does not > mean there is no difference. Can you visually tell the dif between a > 2.4ghz cpu and a 2.6ghz cpu? No! So there isnt any point in upgrading from one to the other, stupid.
From: Rod Speed on 16 Dec 2009 15:18 Cronos wrote > David Brown wrote >> If you don't notice the effect of a supposed improvement, then it >> doesn't matter. Defragging may have a /measurable/ effect on some >> operations, without being noticeable - in which case, it doesn't matter. > Car A travels at 45mph, car B travels at 47mph,everything else being > equal, which do you think will reach it's destination first? Doh! Doesnt happen with defragging, because the absolute vast bulk of linear access to very large files is with media files where it takes EXACTLY the same time to play the file whether its fragmented or not.
From: Rod Speed on 16 Dec 2009 16:42
BD wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote >> BD wrote >>>> Wrong, as always. >>> Oi. What are you, twelve? >> Old enough to be your father, and quite possibly even your grandfather, thanks. > And the fact that you're older means what, exactly? Why did you bring up age, fuckwit ? <reams of you desperately attempting to bullshit your way out of your predicament that fools absolutely no one at all, as always, flushed where it belongs> |