Follow up to defrag validity discussion: please read
in [Storage]
|
Prev: Samsung HD753lj external drive- computer does'nt see
Next: Hands-on with the ioSafe Solo external hard drive
From: Cronos on 7 Jan 2010 23:40 Rod Speed wrote: > So if you furiously defrag to speed up file copys, you are in fact > wasting a hell of a lot more time in the defrags than you ever > save in the file copys of the unfragmented files even if you > are stupid enough to copy very large files around much. > > Well, I may be stupid but not stupid enough to defrag furiously and frequently. I remember one person posting a few years back that they had defrag set to run every morning when he turned his computer on. Part of the problem here is game developers misinforming customers, one of their tips to increase game performance is almost always to defrag the HDD. I see gamers recommending doing that quite frequently and when I say it is a waste of time they just call me an idiot for it.
From: Cronos on 7 Jan 2010 23:43 Rod Speed wrote: > And dont forget that even when you show that say a file copy does save > a few seconds with very large files, you have to count the time the defrag > takes and compare that with the saving of time in the file copy. When you > do, you will find that the defrag takes MUCH more time than is saved in > the file copy of an unfragmented file. > > I know, I downloaded defraggler yesterday and let it defrag a 1TB HDD with 480GB of game files on it and it took a good 3hrs. about.
From: Mike Tomlinson on 8 Jan 2010 10:47 In article <hhttr5$f83$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Cronos <cronos(a)sphere.invalid> writes [about Woddles] >he is the one peson in this group who I have seen >state it many times over the years and I think he is FOS and is giving >bad advice. Yep. Killfile for lossless compression. -- (\__/) (='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded. (")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png
From: Mike Tomlinson on 8 Jan 2010 11:05 In article <hhuhb0$hg9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Cronos <cronos(a)sphere.invalid> writes [converting to NTFS] >I did that once and it was an extremely slow process. Never again! Presumably you did something like convert c: /fs:ntfs ? That leaves the allocation unit at 512 bytes which is very inefficient for larger disks, especially when used with NTFS, and can slow things down considerably. Unless you are converting a fresh or very small installation, IMO it's better to backup, reformat in NTFS with default (4k) clusters, and restore. I've also ended up with weird-looking disks after using Partition Tragic to do the conversion. Large blocks of red appear in the defrag output which just will not clear down. >Yes, I seriously think Rod is out to lunch on the subject of defrag. Well, think about this. He says he never defrags, so how does he know it doesn't work? :o) Finally, my impression over the years is that while a defragger is essential for a FAT32 volume, it's much less so for NTFS. But NTFS does seem to benefit from a very occasional clearing out of the cobwebs. A couple of times a year is enough for me, but it depends on the machine, what's installed, and what it's used for. You cannot make blanket Woddle-like proclamations on this subject without knowing the context. -- (\__/) (='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded. (")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png
From: Rod Speed on 8 Jan 2010 18:41
Cronos wrote: You never ever could bullshit and lie your way out of a wet paper bag. |