From: aleX on
Rod Speed wrote:

>>Slightly OT, but I had a similar problem with ISO files and chkdsk. I
>>didn't realise at the time that when you create an ISO, the file it
>>creates can be very fragmented. I was copying and moving these 4Gb
>>'files' around on the hard drive, then suddenly the hard drive stopped
>>responding. Not surprising really, given the processing power required
>>to shift huge fragmented files around.
>
>
> That is just plain wrong. Fragmented files
> have no effect on processing power at all.

Thanks for letting me know, I won't erroneously describe it again.

I assumed that the system would need to keep track of where each
'fragment' was, rather than just a start and end point for a contiguous
file, hence take far longer. This probably isn't the case though, I'm no
expert, or anything approaching. What I do know is that chkdsk destroyed
a lot of the files on my drive, admittedly after I stupidly restarted
the machine when it may still have been processing.
From: Rod Speed on
aleX <aleX(a)no-email-address.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Slightly OT, but I had a similar problem with ISO files and chkdsk.
>>> I didn't realise at the time that when you create an ISO, the file
>>> it creates can be very fragmented. I was copying and moving these
>>> 4Gb 'files' around on the hard drive, then suddenly the hard drive
>>> stopped responding. Not surprising really, given the processing
>>> power required to shift huge fragmented files around.

>> That is just plain wrong. Fragmented files
>> have no effect on processing power at all.

> Thanks for letting me know, I won't erroneously describe it again.

> I assumed that the system would need to keep track of where each
> 'fragment' was, rather than just a start and end point for a contiguous file,

Yes.

> hence take far longer.

The effort required to do that is completely trivial processing power wise.

> This probably isn't the case though, I'm no expert, or anything approaching.
> What I do know is that chkdsk destroyed a lot of the files on my drive,
> admittedly after I stupidly restarted the machine when it may still have been
> processing.

Yeah, tho it would have stalled for some other reason.

It certainly wouldnt have been due to fragmentation.


From: 127.0.0.1 on

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3m1trtF14q81uU1(a)individual.net...
> aleX <aleX(a)no-email-address.com> wrote:
>> jhigbee(a)nyx.net wrote:
>>
>> Slightly OT, but I had a similar problem with ISO files and chkdsk. I
>> didn't realise at the time that when you create an ISO, the file it
>> creates can be very fragmented. I was copying and moving these 4Gb
>> 'files' around on the hard drive, then suddenly the hard drive stopped
>> responding. Not surprising really, given the processing power required
>> to shift huge fragmented files around.
>
> That is just plain wrong. Fragmented files
> have no effect on processing power at all.

I would agree, but, under task manager, CPU usage shows Defrag hitting the
upper limits.

-a|ex


From: Rod Speed on
127.0.0.1 <get.rooted(a)localhost> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod_speed(a)yahoo.com> wrote
>> aleX <aleX(a)no-email-address.com> wrote
>>> jhigbee(a)nyx.net wrote

>>> Slightly OT, but I had a similar problem with ISO files and chkdsk.
>>> I didn't realise at the time that when you create an ISO, the file
>>> it creates can be very fragmented. I was copying and moving these
>>> 4Gb 'files' around on the hard drive, then suddenly the hard drive
>>> stopped responding. Not surprising really, given the processing
>>> power required to shift huge fragmented files around.

>> That is just plain wrong. Fragmented files
>> have no effect on processing power at all.

> I would agree, but, under task manager, CPU usage shows Defrag hitting the
> upper limits.

Irrelevant. Thats just the extensive moving of
files around to get rid of the fragmentation.

You'd get the same result moving
unfragmented files around as much too.


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: USB 2.0 port
Next: partition order in partition table