From: Bilky White on
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7op1bdF3r6cc0U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
> unless the user
> can detect the difference that defragging makes, there isnt any point in
> doing it.
>

Wise words. And that is also why you should never bother to change the oil
in your car engine either.

From: Bilky White on
"David Brown" <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:4b278631$0$3882$8404b019(a)news.wineasy.se...
>
> Oil changes /do/ make user-detectable changes, albeit over a long time.
> Defragging doesn't, no matter how long you leave it - except perhaps in
> that the increased wear and tear on the disk due to unnecessary defragging
> may lower its lifetime.

Thanks David, I just enjoy yanking Rod's chain from time to time, keep him
on his toes :)

From: mscotgrove on
On Dec 15, 12:48 pm, David Brown <da...(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
wrote:
> mscotgr...(a)aol.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > It is no excuse not to backup a drive, but recovery of a corrupted or
> > damaged drive can often be easier if the files are not fragmented.
>
> I think the word "often" here is a gross exaggeration.  It is
> conceivable that a professional recovery service will find it marginally
> easier to recover non-fragmented files, but that's about it.
>
> In the good old days of small drives, few files, and plain text formats
> then your argument might hold water when piecing together a lost file
> from individual disk sectors.
>
>
>
> > The files that often get very fragmented are ones that grow, such as e-
> > mail inboxes, and documents/spread sheets that have been worked on a
> > lot.  These are often viewed as very importat files to recover.
>
> > Do an occasional defrag, and a very regular backup.
>
> > Michael- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If the FATs are lost all fragmentation information is also lost.

If the MFT has been overwritten, or lost, then all fragmentation is
also lost.

On a large fragmented disk, a large file can have many fragments - a
few hundred for e-mail files. These are not easy to join together by
hand, or by program.

About 1/3rd of my data recovery jobs do require a raw recovery mode
where there is no fragment information available. The automatic
recovery rate on non defragged drives does decrease.

Data recovery is not a subsitute for good backups. Anything to make
it easier is worth an occasional defrag.

Michael
www.cnwrecovery.com
From: Rod Speed on
mscotgrove(a)aol.com wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote
>> David Brown wrote
>>> Cronos wrote
>>>> David Brown wrote

>>>>> "Microsoft disagrees with you" is as good an argument as "Kermit
>>>>> the Frog disagrees with you". There are so many bad choices for
>>>>> defaults in Windows that this is absolutely no indication that
>>>>> defragging is useful in general, or useful on a regular basis.

>>>> But Microsoft is not Kermit the frog and have many very smart
>>>> people working for them so I think it might be prudent to give
>>>> them some credibility instead of discounting them without
>>>> understanding why they have it set to auto defrag once per week.
>>>> My guess is they do that because to do it once a week means it is
>>>> far quicker to keep the HDDs defragged than doing it once every
>>>> few months.

>>> Respect and credibility is something a person or company must work
>>> hard to earn, and can quickly loose. MS has worked long and hard to
>>> ensure they have as little credibility with technically
>>> knowledgeable people as they possibly can.

>>> I am /not/ saying that they are always wrong. But you must be very
>>> na�ve to assume that what they say is right, without looking for
>>> independent confirmation or proof.

>>> It is generally true that defragging will be faster if the last time
>>> you ran it was a week ago rather than two months ago. But the total
>>> time wasted on weekly defrags over those two months is much more
>>> than the time wasted for a single defrag once every two months. But
>>> whether you do it once a week or every second month, it is still
>>> wasted time.

>>> You wanted to know the reason newer Windows defaults to auto
>>> defragging once a week? It's because lots of people, such as
>>> yourself, assume that this is a "new feature" - another "reason" for
>>> "upgrading" to Vista / Windows 7. Companies like DiskKeeper have
>>> done a great false advertising job persuading people that they need
>>> scheduled defragmenters - MS is simply cashing in on their marketing.

>> Nope, the fools that decide the defaults cant grasp the basics, that
>> unless the user can detect the difference that defragging makes,
>> there isnt any point in doing it.

> It is no excuse not to backup a drive, but recovery of a corrupted
> or damaged drive can often be easier if the files are not fragmented.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to backup instead of defrag, stupid.

> The files that often get very fragmented are ones that grow, such as
> e- mail inboxes, and documents/spread sheets that have been worked
> on a lot. These are often viewed as very importat files to recover.

> Do an occasional defrag, and a very regular backup.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to backup instead of defrag, stupid.


From: Rod Speed on
mscotgrove(a)aol.com wrote:
> On Dec 15, 12:48 pm, David Brown <da...(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
> wrote:
>> mscotgr...(a)aol.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>> It is no excuse not to backup a drive, but recovery of a corrupted
>>> or damaged drive can often be easier if the files are not
>>> fragmented.
>>
>> I think the word "often" here is a gross exaggeration. It is
>> conceivable that a professional recovery service will find it
>> marginally easier to recover non-fragmented files, but that's about
>> it.
>>
>> In the good old days of small drives, few files, and plain text
>> formats then your argument might hold water when piecing together a
>> lost file from individual disk sectors.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The files that often get very fragmented are ones that grow, such
>>> as e- mail inboxes, and documents/spread sheets that have been
>>> worked on a lot. These are often viewed as very importat files to
>>> recover.
>>
>>> Do an occasional defrag, and a very regular backup.
>>
>>> Michael- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> If the FATs are lost all fragmentation information is also lost.
>
> If the MFT has been overwritten, or lost, then all fragmentation is
> also lost.
>
> On a large fragmented disk, a large file can have many fragments - a
> few hundred for e-mail files. These are not easy to join together by
> hand, or by program.
>
> About 1/3rd of my data recovery jobs do require a raw recovery mode
> where there is no fragment information available. The automatic
> recovery rate on non defragged drives does decrease.
>
> Data recovery is not a subsitute for good backups. Anything to make
> it easier is worth an occasional defrag.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to backup instead of defrag, stupid.