disk defragmenter
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:29 am
How many times do you do disk defragmenter and how long it takes if you have a 100G hard drive or so?
Massive Quasars wrote:everyday, defrag for 2 hours, scheduled
as do i
As does anyone with any kind of computer sense.Massive Quasars wrote:as do i
I don't buy the gimmick of defragmentation. Granted, if you're maxing a 400 gig drive and draining it back to 10 2-3 times per month, a monthly exercise would be prudent, but defragging for the sake of defragging is notorious * even with disk keeper * for causing file corruption.SOAPboy wrote:As does anyone with any kind of computer sense.Massive Quasars wrote:as do i
6 years running NT 4 (yeah I know, holy fuck) server running oracle 8i without a single defrag and no complaints about performance. Solid, like solid so far.+JuggerNaut+ wrote:aye, a rare ritual here, brutha.
Its far from a gimmick.Underpants? wrote:I don't buy the gimmick of defragmentation. Granted, if you're maxing a 400 gig drive and draining it back to 10 2-3 times per month, a monthly exercise would be prudent, but defragging for the sake of defragging is notorious * even with disk keeper * for causing file corruption.SOAPboy wrote:As does anyone with any kind of computer sense.Massive Quasars wrote: as do i
If part of a file isnt where it should be. IE fragmented. It still takes MORE time (even if its in nanoseconds) to find that said peice if it wasent fragmented.Underpants? wrote:Generally speaking, this is a false statement, soap. Read and write performance increase should only be poor on a heavily fragmented drive that a. is low on free disk space, or b. has less than an 8Mb buffer, which is extremely rare in this day and age.
:Headbang:dzjepp wrote:btw diskeeper 8 is coming out soon, some nifty features like being able to defrag removable storage and better boot-time defrags.
http://www.raxco.com/
lol you're telling Undies. that's a good one.SOAPboy wrote:If part of a file isnt where it should be. IE fragmented. It still takes MORE time (even if its in nanoseconds) to find that said peice if it wasent fragmented.Underpants? wrote:Generally speaking, this is a false statement, soap. Read and write performance increase should only be poor on a heavily fragmented drive that a. is low on free disk space, or b. has less than an 8Mb buffer, which is extremely rare in this day and age.
When a drive gets to the point of near solid red bar defrag. its going to run quite a bit slower.
College. Teaches stuff.
If you say so.Underpants? wrote:I blame false information and the internet.
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:lol you're telling Undies. that's a good one.SOAPboy wrote:If part of a file isnt where it should be. IE fragmented. It still takes MORE time (even if its in nanoseconds) to find that said peice if it wasent fragmented.Underpants? wrote:Generally speaking, this is a false statement, soap. Read and write performance increase should only be poor on a heavily fragmented drive that a. is low on free disk space, or b. has less than an 8Mb buffer, which is extremely rare in this day and age.
When a drive gets to the point of near solid red bar defrag. its going to run quite a bit slower.
College. Teaches stuff.