Page 1 of 2

disk defragmenter

Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:29 am
by Pete
How many times do you do disk defragmenter and how long it takes if you have a 100G hard drive or so?

Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:12 am
by dzjepp
Damn pete is this 100-questions?

Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:14 am
by Massive Quasars
everyday, defrag for 2 hours, scheduled

Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:51 am
by Pete
Massive Quasars wrote:everyday, defrag for 2 hours, scheduled

2 hours, how much Gigs that is?

Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:16 am
by Denz

Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:26 am
by rep
O&O, so never.

Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:28 am
by Massive Quasars
Denz wrote:I use Diskeeper

http://www.diskeeper.com/defrag.asp
as do i

Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:38 am
by SOAPboy
Massive Quasars wrote:
Denz wrote:I use Diskeeper

http://www.diskeeper.com/defrag.asp
as do i
As does anyone with any kind of computer sense.

Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:56 am
by Captain
Not necessary everyday unless you do a lot of heavy installations and move large files around.

Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 4:19 am
by Underpants?
SOAPboy wrote:
Massive Quasars wrote:
Denz wrote:I use Diskeeper

http://www.diskeeper.com/defrag.asp
as do i
As does anyone with any kind of computer sense.
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.

Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 4:21 am
by +JuggerNaut+
aye, a rare ritual here, brutha.

Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 4:47 am
by Tormentius
I somewhat agree with Underpants even though I don't think its a gimmick. Defragmenting definitely does speed things up but IMO it only needs to be done every 2-4 weeks and thats only if there is a ton of file creation/deletion in that time period.

Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:04 am
by Underpants?
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:aye, a rare ritual here, brutha.
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. :paranoid: *touches lucky rabbit's foot
Torm, in past years I've policied the monthly defrag that an overwhelming amount of professionals subscribe to, and have had mixed results, however, every corporate focus is different so I could be unfair in my judgement.

Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:29 am
by Tormentius
You're talking about a file server using SCSI though right? I don't bother defragmenting my servers either and have seen no performance issues due to fragmentation. Workstations using IDE or SATA, on the other hand, seem more susceptible to performance loss.

Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:30 am
by SOAPboy
Underpants? wrote:
SOAPboy wrote:
Massive Quasars wrote: as do i
As does anyone with any kind of computer sense.
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.
Its far from a gimmick.

Drive access times are faster with a properly defragged box.


I USED to be retarded about it and do it once a night. Yeah overkill.. now every month or so. And when i dont, i can tell. Mostly gaming or doing anything that uses the HDs heavily.

Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:43 pm
by Underpants?
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.

Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:31 pm
by dzjepp
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/

Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:25 pm
by SOAPboy
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.
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.


When a drive gets to the point of near solid red bar defrag. its going to run quite a bit slower.

College. Teaches stuff. :p

Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:25 pm
by SOAPboy
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/
:Headbang:

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:10 am
by dzjepp
o&o defrag was also updated :p

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:35 am
by +JuggerNaut+
SOAPboy wrote:
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.
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.


When a drive gets to the point of near solid red bar defrag. its going to run quite a bit slower.

College. Teaches stuff. :p
lol you're telling Undies. that's a good one.

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:48 pm
by Underpants?
I blame false information and the internet.

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:58 pm
by AmIdYfReAk
i'm runnin Diskeeper 10 at the Mo, but i have known about O&o for a long time now and maby i will switch next format :)

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:18 pm
by SOAPboy
Underpants? wrote:I blame false information and the internet.
If you say so.
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:
SOAPboy wrote:
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.
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.


When a drive gets to the point of near solid red bar defrag. its going to run quite a bit slower.

College. Teaches stuff. :p
lol you're telling Undies. that's a good one.

Why? Because hes outright wrong here?

Re: disk defragmenter

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:20 am
by +JuggerNaut+
no.