| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 81008 | 2007-07-12 18:37:00 | Defragging | JJJJJ (528) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 568490 | 2007-07-12 22:45:00 | I never manually defragment my drive because on a modern system it is never necessary. In the real world the time lost when reading a fragmented file is measured in milliseconds (the seek time to the subsequent fragment). Add to this the fact that only large files are likely to get fragmented in the first place and then only once or twice, making this a negligible portion of the total read time. It used to be a problem on small drives with FAT partitions because there were few decently size empty blocks and the algorithms for allocating space were very basic. Modern filesystems such as NTFS are much less susceptible to serious fragmentation. The smaller the drive and the fuller it is the greater the fragmentation - nowadays neither condition is met often enough to be a problem. Your MP3 player could become badly fragmented but on a modern hard drive defragmenting will cost you a thousand times more time than you gain. Even if you run it in the background, the cost of moving fragments around is heavier than the cost of accessing them when you really do need them. |
TGoddard (7263) | ||
| 568491 | 2007-07-13 00:45:00 | I'm with TG I never Defrag either. When I have run the windows Defrag utility and looked at what files it says are fragmented it's mostly system restore and other programs I don't much care about. Also I have read an article somewhere ( Tom's Hardware I think ) where they benchmarked a system, deliberately fragmented a drive, then benchmarked again with a 1-2% difference on only a very few tests with no real measurable overall difference. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 568492 | 2007-07-13 00:57:00 | If users dont have much memory, I used to remove a swap file, reboot, re-create the swap file setting, but instead of dynamic, created a static swap file to correct % in order to stop swap file fragmentation which different from fragmented files, does have an impact on performance. Nowadays of course, memory is very cheap and of course the prefer option. |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 568493 | 2007-07-13 01:35:00 | Are u using V10 of O&O JJJJJ? Its up to v10 build 1634 now . I use this too . I usually select offline defrag . So, it defrags all hdd's, when I reboot . Only once tho, not every day, or everytime I reboot . V8 build 1398 |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 568494 | 2007-07-13 01:43:00 | I never manually defragment my drive because on a modern system it is never necessary. In the real world the time lost when reading a fragmented file is measured in milliseconds (the seek time to the subsequent fragment). Add to this the fact that only large files are likely to get fragmented in the first place and then only once or twice, making this a negligible portion of the total read time. . I completely disagree. And so does everyone else who runs Flight Simulator. After half an hour my disk is 15/20% fragmented. Then you start getting lockups and end up getting dumped. |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 568495 | 2007-07-13 01:45:00 | I defrag, virus/mallware/spyware scan every sunday. While I listen to the axe attack on the radio I do all my 'housework' lol | rob_on_guitar (4196) | ||
| 568496 | 2007-07-13 03:53:00 | I completely disagree. And so does everyone else who runs Flight Simulator. After half an hour my disk is 15/20% fragmented. Then you start getting lockups and end up getting dumped. Don't mean to sound rude, but this is the funniest thing I have ever read. Are you quite sure you are correct? |
LiquidSolidity (1589) | ||
| 568497 | 2007-07-13 04:18:00 | Don't mean to sound rude, but this is the funniest thing I have ever read. Are you quite sure you are correct? Perfectly sure. |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 568498 | 2007-07-13 08:42:00 | Defrag waste of time done speed trials before and after no difference. Its a big have although it looks nice when all those free spaces get taken out. It an illusion, notice if you defrag and hit defrag again it still takes the same time and all the free spaces have appeared again. Biggest con around I reckon. tedheath |
tedheath (537) | ||
| 568499 | 2007-07-13 10:47:00 | Defrag waste of time done speed trials before and after no difference. Its a big have although it looks nice when all those free spaces get taken out. It an illusion, notice if you defrag and hit defrag again it still takes the same time and all the free spaces have appeared again. Biggest con around I reckon. tedheath Do you use one of those Russian Defrag programs? |
rocky138 (10636) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||