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: Rod Speed on 8 Jan 2010 18:45 Cronos wrote > 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. Then you wont save much time at all on file copys if you say only defrag every 6 months or a year. > 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. And when we keep telling fools like you that defragging wont have any effect at all on anything except file copys with real world personal desktop systems, fools like you call us an idiot for rubbing your pig ignorant noses in those basics.
From: Rod Speed on 8 Jan 2010 18:48 Cronos wrote > 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. And you would have to do a hell of a lot of pointless file copying to save anything like that amount of time by defragging. So, like I have said all along, its pointless defragging modern personal desktop systems in all but the most unusual situations.
From: Rod Speed on 8 Jan 2010 18:51 Mike Tomlinson wrote: > 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) Because every time I do defrag it makes no difference, stupid. > Finally, my impression over the years is that while > a defragger is essential for a FAT32 volume, Have fun explaining why mine work fine without being defragged. > it's much less so for NTFS. But NTFS does seem to > benefit from a very occasional clearing out of the cobwebs. Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim. > 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. Corse you can when defragging makes no difference, fuckwit.
From: Cronos on 9 Jan 2010 03:58 Rod Speed wrote: > And when we keep telling fools like you that defragging wont > have any effect at all on anything except file copys with real > world personal desktop systems, fools like you call us an > idiot for rubbing your pig ignorant noses in those basics. > > Well, I haven't seen any of you provide concrete data to back up your claims so it is still just hearsay. I am not fool enough to take hearsay as fact.
From: David Brown on 9 Jan 2010 06:21
Cronos wrote: > Rod Speed wrote: > >> And when we keep telling fools like you that defragging wont >> have any effect at all on anything except file copys with real >> world personal desktop systems, fools like you call us an >> idiot for rubbing your pig ignorant noses in those basics. >> > > Well, I haven't seen any of you provide concrete data to back up your > claims so it is still just hearsay. I am not fool enough to take hearsay > as fact. I have backed up my claims with concrete explanations of how file access works, and why fragmentation is rarely has any significant impact with a modern system (as compared to a decade or two ago, when it /did/ have an impact on DOS+Windows systems). I have no intention of wasting my time defragmenting or artificially fragmenting my file systems just to produce numbers for /your/ benefit - even if I did, other people's benchmarks are never as useful as your own measurements on your own system. You have had clear explanations in this thread as to why defragmentation is not a significant issue - even Rod was clear and to-the-point, and unusually restrained in most of his posts. The quotations you posted from your other sources are a mixture of absurd claims ("fragmentation broke my enterprise database"), ignorant and out-dated "facts", and adverts and press releases from defragmentation software companies. Nothing came close to being a sensible explanation of the claimed effects. |