From: Leythos on
In article <4bf264cb$0$22917$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl>,
Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much(a)spamyourself.com says...
> I have seen serious performance improvements (on both FAT32 and NTFS)
> after defragging (also the systemfiles with
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx)
>
> Others claim the same. How do you explain that?
>

My guess is that he's either a troll or some kid in school that has no
friends so he has to pretend to know something here.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Twayne on
In news:OJs07Hc9KHA.5476(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
Bob I <birelan(a)yahoo.com> typed:
> Brian V wrote:
>
>> What about defragmentation with a RAID system? Doesn't
>> this system eliminate file defragmentation? I am under the
>> impression that it is two copies of everything (one on
>> each drive), it is a faster (and ??more stable system??)
>> and more reliable system?
>
> RAID 0 is nothing more than Mirrored Drives, it won't be
> faster or more stable, only provides a identical copy in
> the event a harddrive fails.

Jeez, quit guessing at what you "think" are the facts, dummy!

A RAID 0 (also known as a stripe set or striped volume) splits data evenly
across two or more disks (striped) with no parity information for
redundancy. It is important to note that RAID 0 was not one of the original
RAID levels and provides no data redundancy. RAID 0 is normally used to
increase performance, although it can also be used as a way to create a
small number of large virtual disks out of a large number of small physical
ones.


From: Twayne on
In news:4bf264cb$0$22917$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl,
Erwin Moller <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much(a)spamyourself.com>
typed:
....

>>
>> An NTFS system will suck up the file with ONE head
>> movement. You still have the rotational delays and so
>> forth, but NTFS will cut the six minutes off the slurp-up
>> time.
>
> Hi Heybub,
>
> This is the second time I hear you claiming this.
> How do you 'envision' the head(s) reading all fragments in
> one go?
> In your example: 8000 fragments. If these are scattered all
> over the place, the head has to read a lot of different places
> before all info is in. Compare this to one continuous
> sequential set of data where the head reads all without extra seeking
> and/or skipping parts.
>
> Also, and especially on systems that need a huge swapfile,
> after filling up your HD a few times can lead to heavily fragmented
> swapfile. This gives a performance penalty.
>
> I have seen serious performance improvements (on both FAT32
> and NTFS) after defragging (also the systemfiles with
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx)
>
> Others claim the same. How do you explain that?
>
> Erwin Moller
>
>
....

Remember, this is the guy who can suspend all laws of physics at his will.
There are a couple such people here in fact. It works for him because the
heads are "magnetic" and so are the data. But the head has a super-magnetic
mode: So, the head just comes down and sucks up all the data it needs from
the disk in one fell swoop. It can tell which ones to slurp up by the
arrangement of the magnetic field on the disk; so when the head goes
super-magnetic, it's only for those data parts that are of the right
polarity; the head just has to sit the until they all collect on it, and
then it moves them over to RAM to be used.!
Sounds pretty simple to me! lol!

HTH,

Twayne`


From: Twayne on
In news:MPG.265c543da821451098a386(a)us.news.astraweb.com,
Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> typed:
> In article <4bf264cb$0$22917$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl>,
> Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much(a)spamyourself.com
> says...
>> I have seen serious performance improvements (on both
>> FAT32 and NTFS) after defragging (also the systemfiles with
>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx)
>>
>> Others claim the same. How do you explain that?
>>
>
> My guess is that he's either a troll or some kid in school
> that has no friends so he has to pretend to know something
> here.

You may be right, but recall also that there is always the "little knowledge
is dangerous" thing too. e.g. if RAID is used for data redundancy was taught
in school, then RAID 0 is just one of those schemes. He may not have yet
noticed that this is a world of generalities, but very, very specific
generalities that don't intuitively cover all cases.

HTH,

Twayne`


From: Erwin Moller on
Twayne schreef:
> In news:4bf264cb$0$22917$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl,
> Erwin Moller <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much(a)spamyourself.com>
> typed:
> ...
>
>>> An NTFS system will suck up the file with ONE head
>>> movement. You still have the rotational delays and so
>>> forth, but NTFS will cut the six minutes off the slurp-up
>>> time.
>> Hi Heybub,
>>
>> This is the second time I hear you claiming this.
>> How do you 'envision' the head(s) reading all fragments in
>> one go?
>> In your example: 8000 fragments. If these are scattered all
>> over the place, the head has to read a lot of different places
>> before all info is in. Compare this to one continuous
>> sequential set of data where the head reads all without extra seeking
>> and/or skipping parts.
>>
>> Also, and especially on systems that need a huge swapfile,
>> after filling up your HD a few times can lead to heavily fragmented
>> swapfile. This gives a performance penalty.
>>
>> I have seen serious performance improvements (on both FAT32
>> and NTFS) after defragging (also the systemfiles with
>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx)
>>
>> Others claim the same. How do you explain that?
>>
>> Erwin Moller
>>
>>
> ...
>
> Remember, this is the guy who can suspend all laws of physics at his will.
> There are a couple such people here in fact. It works for him because the
> heads are "magnetic" and so are the data. But the head has a super-magnetic
> mode: So, the head just comes down and sucks up all the data it needs from
> the disk in one fell swoop. It can tell which ones to slurp up by the
> arrangement of the magnetic field on the disk; so when the head goes
> super-magnetic, it's only for those data parts that are of the right
> polarity; the head just has to sit the until they all collect on it, and
> then it moves them over to RAM to be used.!
> Sounds pretty simple to me! lol!


LOL, thanks for that excellent explanation. ;-)

I always find it difficult when to respond and when not.
In cases I feel I see serious misinformation, like here with Heybub, I
feel sorry for people who don't know that, and subsequentially take that
kind of advice seriously.

Ah well, that is how usenet was, is, and probably always will be. ;-)

Regards,
Erwin Moller

>
> HTH,
>
> Twayne`
>
>



--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare