Which defrag?

[enkidu]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

I mostly agree. That's why I had the "theoretically" in
there. However defragging involves reading and *writing*
lots of data as opposed to normal use which has a bias in
favour of reading.

However, defragging might destroy a certain natural
optimisation that comes from actually using the data. Small
frequently used files and fragments might come to move
closer to the MFT and MFT extension. Larger and less
frequently used files might tend to move further out.

I don't know, I'm guessing on that. But pragmatically, I've
not been able to see any significant benefits from a
defragmentation.

Cheers,

Cliff

Greg Hayes/Raxco Software wrote:
>
> "If you have a reasonably large hard disk, there
> is little real advantage in defragging a disk. In
> addition it exercises the disk which theoretically
> reduces its life."
>
> Conversely, if you don't defragment, then it causes
> extra seeks on your hard drive which theoretically
> reduces its life. So-o-o, darned if you do, darned
> if you don't
>
> Seriously, defragmentation doesn't reduce hard life
> expectancy with modern hard drives. This ranks right
> up there along with other computer myths. And, it
> doesn't matter how large of a hard drive you have,
> fragmentation happens - it is designed to happen -
> its part of how the file system function.
>
>
> "Enkidu" <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
> news:42476701@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>
>>jt wrote:
>>
>>>Hello all,
>>>
>>>New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag
>>
>> > adequate or should I get a better one? Which is
>> > better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>>
>>I never defrag. If you have a reasonably large hard disk,
>>there is little real advantage in defragging a disk. In
>>addition it exercises the disk which theoretically reduces
>>its life.
>>
>>If you have a small disk, degragging is not an efficient
>>process anyway.
>>
>>I certainly wouldn't pay money for a defragger.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Cliff
>>
>>--
>>
>>Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
>
>
>



--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:34:08 -0500, "Modem Ani"
<notquinoas@notmyrealbox.com> wrote:

>So, now that you've taken the plunge, how much faster does your system run?
>How much faster does it boot? Got any before and after benchmarks to share?

Well, as my past message indicates, I have only used it for a day now
so lets see if I can tell you what I have seen in one day.

And, as my previous posts indicated, I was using Norton's Speed Disk
which works much the same way as PerfectDisk in that it not only
defrags but moves everything forward to fill the "holes" which means
that refragmentation takes a bit longer to occur unlike on systems
that were only defragmented but the bunches of open "holes" were left
to excite further fragmentation.

So, with that, I have seen no difference between any speed taken to
load the mega CAD files we load on and off all day long between
Norton's Speed Disk and PerfectDisk. However, the defrag utilities
that I had tried before going to Norton's speed disk and now testing
PerfectDisk did show that they didn't do much to keep the loading time
on these mega CAD files down. I found out that the reason was because
they left open holes and every time a mega sized CAD file was saved,
it just starting filling in all the holes and thus became fragmented
and took longer to load up next time around.

So, All I can say is that in the specific type of operations we do
with computers, defragmenting Along With compression or filling the
holes up or whatever the specific utility calls it, does better at
mega CAD file loading performance. I see no sense in defragmenting if
you aren't going to fill up all the holes left behind. Sorry if I
don't use the proper technical terms for everything but I'm just a
business owner that looks for anything to keep the performance of our
CAD machines up to snuff. I go with what my operators tell me works
because they are on the systems 8-10 hours/day. They say
Defragmenting WITH Compression (filling the holes up) is the ticket.

Even though Speed Disk and PerfectDisk operate the same (give the same
performance benefits), I like this PerfectDisk's GUI and graphical
progress indicator better that Norton's. That is why I am leaning
toward changing from Norton to PerfectDisk and of course as long as it
keeps my CAD operators happy.

Hope this answered your question.

Regards,
DW

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:51:04 -0800, "Ken Gardner"
<KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>If only people would answer these types of questions after trying all
>so-called "performance enhancing" software, they would have a much better
>understanding of how well XP actually performs even when you don't mess with
>it beyond what it is already designed to do.

If you want people to "answer these types of questions" then have the
common courtesy to allow them more than a few hours to evaluate the
software......

DW

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Hello all,
>
> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get
> a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?

The native defrag is fully sufficient - no need for a commercial version.




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0513-0, 29/03/2005
Tested on: 30/03/2005 8:32:06 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:22:40 +1000, "SteveK" <nospam@iprimus.com.au> wrote:


Here's a thought..
someone quoted a 3% increase in speed. How long did the defrag take ? When will
you have to defrag again ?

I'm thinking you'll waste more time defragging than you'll save by defragging.

>
>"jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
>news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> Hello all,
>>
>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get
>> a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>
>The native defrag is fully sufficient - no need for a commercial version.
>
>
>
>
>---
>avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
>Virus Database (VPS): 0513-0, 29/03/2005
>Tested on: 30/03/2005 8:32:06 AM
>avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software.
>http://www.avast.com
>
>

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

In news:8epj41ttkhe90816vtr6j1jo68np4m0960@4ax.com,
Husky <cbminfo@toast.net> typed:

> someone quoted a 3% increase in speed. How long did the defrag
> take ?
> When will you have to defrag again ?

> I'm thinking you'll waste more time defragging than you'll save
> by
> defragging.


Since you can almost always do a defrag at night while you're
sleeping, from a practical standpoint a defrag takes no time at
all.

How much time you save varies with your usage patterns, but since
there's no downside to doing it, regardless of how large the
speed increase is, I recommend doing it regularly.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:41:51 -0700, "Ken Blake"
<kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

Now you're talking waste of electricity less you have a way for everything to
power down. I can get the machine to power down, but the monitors still's on.
and anything else draining juice from the power outlet.

It's just not a big necessity. Unless you've written a defrag program.

>
>Since you can almost always do a defrag at night while you're
>sleeping, from a practical standpoint a defrag takes no time at
>all.
>
>How much time you save varies with your usage patterns, but since
>there's no downside to doing it, regardless of how large the
>speed increase is, I recommend doing it regularly.

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[enkidu]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Modem Ani wrote:
>
> Many users do not seem to realize that XP performs
> partial defrags in the background, and that the design
> of these defrags - as I understand it - was well
> thought-out to get the best bang for the buck.
>
That's interesting! Got a reference for that?

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Are you looking for a reference about whether XP performs partial defrags in
the background or whether these partial defrags were designed with "best
bang for the buck"?

If you're asking about partial defragmentation, information on this abounds.
For example, this from TechNet: "Once every three days, by default, Windows
XP will perform a partial defragmentation and adjust the layout of the disk
based upon current use."
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx

If you're asking about "best bang for the buck" - sorry, while I have read
that more than once I can't remember a specific reference right now.

Modem Ani

"Enkidu" <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
news:4249cf80$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
> Modem Ani wrote:
> >
> > Many users do not seem to realize that XP performs
> > partial defrags in the background, and that the design
> > of these defrags - as I understand it - was well
> > thought-out to get the best bang for the buck.
> >
> That's interesting! Got a reference for that?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
>
> --
>
> Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Modem Ani" <notquinoas@notmyrealbox.com> wrote in message news:OG3ia4KNFHA.3512@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Are you looking for a reference about whether XP performs partial defrags in
> the background or whether these partial defrags were designed with "best
> bang for the buck"?
>
> If you're asking about partial defragmentation, information on this abounds.
> For example, this from TechNet: "Once every three days, by default, Windows
> XP will perform a partial defragmentation and adjust the layout of the disk
> based upon current use."
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx
>
> If you're asking about "best bang for the buck" - sorry, while I have read
> that more than once I can't remember a specific reference right now.

Some more info is presented down the page at:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx

You can actually see the results via something like SysInternals DiskView,
which is just below this link:
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#diskext

Sometime after running an O&O complete by name defreg/optimization,
XP did its thing on my drive. I didn't check them all, but it appears that
the files listed in my layout.ini were moved to a contiguous block which is
approx 80% of the way into my volume and sits alone, the last thing on
the volume. Visually speaking that is. According to MS that should be
closer to the outer edge of the disk, but that still doesn't smell right to me.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:26:04 -0500, "Modem Ani" <notquinoas@notmyrealbox.com>
wrote:

Your source only recommends 1 defragmentation and that's only after the OS is
installed.

> Defrag : Therefore, it is a good idea to defragment the disk following an installation.


>Are you looking for a reference about whether XP performs partial defrags in
>the background or whether these partial defrags were designed with "best
>bang for the buck"?
>
>If you're asking about partial defragmentation, information on this abounds.
>For example, this from TechNet: "Once every three days, by default, Windows
>XP will perform a partial defragmentation and adjust the layout of the disk
>based upon current use."
>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx
>
>If you're asking about "best bang for the buck" - sorry, while I have read
>that more than once I can't remember a specific reference right now.
>
>Modem Ani
>
>"Enkidu" <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
>news:4249cf80$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>> Modem Ani wrote:
>> >
>> > Many users do not seem to realize that XP performs
>> > partial defrags in the background, and that the design
>> > of these defrags - as I understand it - was well
>> > thought-out to get the best bang for the buck.
>> >
>> That's interesting! Got a reference for that?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Cliff
>>
>> --
>>
>> Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
>

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

In news😛b2k41p76jdp37ud5dkfan5o06jv16htqk@4ax.com,
Husky <cbminfo@toast.net> typed:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:41:51 -0700, "Ken Blake"
> <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>
> Now you're talking waste of electricity less you have a way for
> everything to power down. I can get the machine to power down,
> but
> the monitors still's on. and anything else draining juice from
> the
> power outlet.


So? Just turn the monitor off. It doesn't need to be on if the
computer's running by itself and you're asleep.

Besides, how much electricity do you think you're wasting, for
8-10 hours once a month or so? It's probably well under
$.25-worth. Not at all a factor, as far as I'm concerned.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


> It's just not a big necessity. Unless you've written a defrag
> program.
>
>>
>> Since you can almost always do a defrag at night while you're
>> sleeping, from a practical standpoint a defrag takes no time
>> at
>> all.
>>
>> How much time you save varies with your usage patterns, but
>> since
>> there's no downside to doing it, regardless of how large the
>> speed increase is, I recommend doing it regularly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:36:43 -0500, "User N" <UserN@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
<snip>
>Some more info is presented down the page at:
>http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx
>
>You can actually see the results via something like SysInternals DiskView,
>which is just below this link:
>http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#diskext
>
>Sometime after running an O&O complete by name defreg/optimization,
>XP did its thing on my drive. I didn't check them all, but it appears that
>the files listed in my layout.ini were moved to a contiguous block which is
>approx 80% of the way into my volume and sits alone, the last thing on
>the volume. Visually speaking that is. According to MS that should be
>closer to the outer edge of the disk, but that still doesn't smell right to me.
Thanks for the pointer to diskview, never seen it before.

I have also seen the layout.ini files moved towards the end of the
volume. Seems to defeat the performance gain, but it might be
argued that at least the necessary files are still contiguous and that
this gives some advantage.

I read somewhere that the reason for this placement is that the
process looks for an existing free area big enough to hold the files;
it doesn't move other files out of the way (from the outer edge,
for example) to make space for them.
Dave

 

[enkidu]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

The former, thanks.

Cheers,

Cliff

Modem Ani wrote:
> Are you looking for a reference about whether XP performs partial defrags in
> the background or whether these partial defrags were designed with "best
> bang for the buck"?
>
> If you're asking about partial defragmentation, information on this abounds.
> For example, this from TechNet: "Once every three days, by default, Windows
> XP will perform a partial defragmentation and adjust the layout of the disk
> based upon current use."
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx
>
> If you're asking about "best bang for the buck" - sorry, while I have read
> that more than once I can't remember a specific reference right now.
>
> Modem Ani
>
> "Enkidu" <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
> news:4249cf80$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>
>>Modem Ani wrote:
>>
>>>Many users do not seem to realize that XP performs
>>
>> > partial defrags in the background, and that the design
>> > of these defrags - as I understand it - was well
>> > thought-out to get the best bang for the buck.
>> >
>>That's interesting! Got a reference for that?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Cliff
>>
>>--
>>
>>Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
>
>
>



--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:13:03 -0800, "Ken Gardner"
<KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> PerfectDisk

Hello Ken.... In my last post I said that I wish they had provided a
PDF manual with the program. Today I found the link where just that
is available. A well thought out, well written 173 page technical
manual. These people continue to impress me. Most software venders
hire some 50 cent/hour 3rd world illiterate to scratch out their 6
page pamphlets they call manuals.

Unlike today's run of the mill software venders, I think these people
have more than two brain cells banging together which puts them heads
above the norm. I haven't had any need to try their support but if it
in the same class as their software and technical manuals, then I
wouldn't be surprised if they have what is called "REAL" technical
Support by "REAL" people that engage "REAL" brains to solve "REAL"
problems in the same language that the caller is speaking in.

Regards,
DW

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

This "partial defrag" only occurs if the system is "idle" at the time that
it runs and only if there is a sufficiently large enough piece of contiguous
free space for the files indicated in layout.ini to be moved into. If both
of the conditions are not met, then this "partial defrag" doesn't get
performed.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.


"Modem Ani" <notquinoas@notmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:OG3ia4KNFHA.3512@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Are you looking for a reference about whether XP performs partial defrags
in
> the background or whether these partial defrags were designed with "best
> bang for the buck"?
>
> If you're asking about partial defragmentation, information on this
abounds.
> For example, this from TechNet: "Once every three days, by default,
Windows
> XP will perform a partial defragmentation and adjust the layout of the
disk
> based upon current use."
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx
>
> If you're asking about "best bang for the buck" - sorry, while I have read
> that more than once I can't remember a specific reference right now.
>
> Modem Ani
>
> "Enkidu" <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
> news:4249cf80$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
> > Modem Ani wrote:
> > >
> > > Many users do not seem to realize that XP performs
> > > partial defrags in the background, and that the design
> > > of these defrags - as I understand it - was well
> > > thought-out to get the best bang for the buck.
> > >
> > That's interesting! Got a reference for that?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Cliff
> >
> > --
> >
> > Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Ken,

The problem with Diskeeper's Performance measurement is that it is measuring
read only performance - which isn't a reflection of how drives are used

An interesting study by one of the original developers of NTFS on free space
consolidation and how NOT doing it can actually result in wasted disk seeks
and actually make drive performance worse -
http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdisk2k/whitepapers/FreeSpace_WhitePaper.pdf

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.

"Ken Gardner" <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:375172DB-AE5A-430C-A287-6FD6895E1086@microsoft.com...
> "Enkidu" wrote:
>
> > There very few independant studies. Search for
> > defragmentation on the web and you there is almost no hard
> > evidence. There's plenty of references to Microsoft
> > documents which talk about defragmentation and how it works,
> > but little evidence that quantifies the possible
> > improvements. Which are likely to be different for database
> > servers or web servers or workstations or home machines.
>
> These points are sources of constant frustration that I have with most
> so-called performance enhancing software, including but not limited to
> defraggers. Intellectually I am perfectly capable of understanding that
> other things being equal, a defragmented hard drive will out-perform a
> fragmented hard drive. But are we talking here about seconds, tenths of
> seconds, or milliseconds?
>
> My own personal experience, which is as a workstation user, is that a
> regularly defragmented hard drive can save you seconds rather than
> milliseconds in disk drive operations, i.e. you can actually notice the
> difference. However, I cannot notice any transparent difference between
> defragging a hard drive using the XP built-in defragger and defragging
using
> a third party program such as Diskeeper or PerfectDisk. Of these
programs,
> only Diskeeper even attempts to measure the performance improvement you
might
> gain, but it does so in terms of percentages rather than actual time. If
it
> takes ten milliseconds to load a file when it used to take five
milliseconds,
> that may be a 50% improvement but no human being will ever notice it. If,
> instead, we are taking about tenths of seconds, then the improvement will
be
> noticable.
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> >
> > There was a need for defragmentation back in the early days
> > of Windows with small, slow disks on FAT16 filesystems. I'm
> > not convinced there's a need when we have large, fast disks
> > and NTFS filesystems. Not to mention large amounts of RAM.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Cliff
> >
> > --
> >
> > Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
> >

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"jt" wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should
I
>get a
>better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?

I purchased a defrag program. It’s great, I installed it and turned
on smart scheduler. It runs automatically in the background and it
doesn’t disrupt my computer use. I think it’s well worth the
price.

--
Posted using the http://www.windowsforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.windowsforumz.com/Help---Support-defrag-ftopict350114.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.windowsforumz.com/eform.php?p=1305797