Do disk defraggers check file systems first?
in [Storage]
|
From: Michael Cecil on 10 Oct 2009 11:14 On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:56:16 +0200, "Joep" <available(a)request.nl> wrote: >"Ato_Zee" <ato_zee(a)hotmail.com> schreef in bericht >news:oEHzm.15881$Tt7.4506(a)newsfe20.ams2... >> >> On 9-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available(a)request.nl> wrote: >> >>> He's possibly afraid a defragger may corrupt a file system >>> in inconsistent state. That's something entirely different than asking a >>> defragger to fix corruption >> >> There are defraggers that will further corrupt a file system >> that is in an inconsistent state. >> There is however no comparison checkbox for >> defraggers. With ticks or crosses for various types >> of corruption/inconsistency of the file system. >> All should stop with an explanation if they find an >> inconsistency, many don't. > >Yes, so this finally answers OP's question. O&O Defrag can be set to run a check of the filesystem before starting. -- Michael Cecil http://home.roadrunner.com/~macecil/ http://home.roadrunner.com/~safehex/ http://home.roadrunner.com/~macecil/hackingw7/
From: Rod Speed on 10 Oct 2009 12:20 Joep wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >> Joep wrote >>> Ato_Zee <ato_zee(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>>> Joep <available(a)request.nl> wrote >>>>>> System performance is a hardware issue, >>>>>> Drive cache size, spin speed, access time, >>>>>> pagefile optimisation, and a few other variables. >>>>> Like fragmentation and placement on disk >>>> Not so, the drive can more than adequately cope with fragmentation. >>> Ah, so a drive copes with fragmentation itself? >> He didnt say that. > It's more productive if you then try to explain to me what it is he's saying. It makes a lot more sense for him to do that himself if he wants to. >>>> With adequate RAM drive access is not an issue. >>> At one point a file has to be read from disk /written to disk. >> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fellas ? >>> No matter the amount of memory a fragmented file will take longer >>> than an unfragmented file placed near the start of the disk. >> Wrong when its a media file and the access to the >> file is entirely dependant on the media play speed. > Yes, and so? So you were just plain wrong.
From: Joep on 11 Oct 2009 05:27 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:7jbqj6F345dq8U1(a)mid.individual.net... > Joep wrote >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> Joep wrote >>>> Ato_Zee <ato_zee(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>>>> Joep <available(a)request.nl> wrote > >>>>>>> System performance is a hardware issue, >>>>>>> Drive cache size, spin speed, access time, >>>>>>> pagefile optimisation, and a few other variables. > >>>>>> Like fragmentation and placement on disk > >>>>> Not so, the drive can more than adequately cope with fragmentation. > >>>> Ah, so a drive copes with fragmentation itself? > >>> He didnt say that. > >> It's more productive if you then try to explain to me what it is he's >> saying. > > It makes a lot more sense for him to do that himself if he wants to. Well, why then say 'he didnt say that' in the first place. > >>>>> With adequate RAM drive access is not an issue. > >>>> At one point a file has to be read from disk /written to disk. > >>> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fellas ? > >>>> No matter the amount of memory a fragmented file will take longer >>>> than an unfragmented file placed near the start of the disk. > >>> Wrong when its a media file and the access to the >>> file is entirely dependant on the media play speed. > >> Yes, and so? > > So you were just plain wrong. Well, if all you do is play your media files all day then maybe, assuming your statement is correct in the first place.
From: Ato_Zee on 11 Oct 2009 07:14 On 11-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available(a)request.nl> wrote: > >>>>> Not so, the drive can more than adequately cope with fragmentation. > > > >>>> Ah, so a drive copes with fragmentation itself? The drive has the MFT and its mirror, It knows wher the requested data is, and will deliver files/data within the time given in its spec. Drives are slow mechanical devices as compared with the purely electronic parts of a system. Many assert that it is not worth defragging as it produces no discernable improvement in system performance. Much like registry cleaners.
From: alfo on 11 Oct 2009 07:32
On 10:56 9 Oct 2009, Joep wrote: > "Ato_Zee" <ato_zee(a)hotmail.com> schreef in bericht > news:JEYym.14389$Xz6.8172(a)newsfe18.ams2... >> >> On 7-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available(a)request.nl> wrote: >> >>> >> He only asked if defraggers checked a volume prior to >>> >> moving data. So, yes/no will do. >> >> You can only say yes or no for a specific defragger, but not >> for defraggers as a generalisation. >> >>> He didn't ask for defraggers to fix things. >> >> If OP is not interested in fixing things the query has no >> meaning. Concern about checking the volume implies >> concern about data integrity. > > Of course it has. He's possibly afraid a defragger may corrupt > a file system in inconsistent state. That's something entirely > different than asking a defragger to fix corruption. > Hello Joep. I'm the OP. I want to avoid making the data in my partitons inaccessible by defragging if the defragger did not ensure file system integrity before it started work. FWIW I use PerfectDisk (it's now at v.10 but I use v.7). Out of interest, does DiskTune do all the checking which Checkdsk does? I know your website says "it checks the volume state prior to defragmentation" but I wasn't sure if that was equivalent to Diskchk. Thanks. http://www.diydatarecovery.com/DiskTune.htm |