Jump to content

Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

Guest Penorama

By Guest Penorama
in Windows XP

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Penorama

Guest Penorama

Posted
Posted

I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run Scandisk and

Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer spick and span. Does it still

apply to these days of Windows XP and Vista?

 

As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance measures every week, but

would like to know their relevance in the present day software environment.

 

Thanks.

  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest PA Bear [MS MVP]

Guest PA Bear [MS MVP]

Posted
Posted

Re: Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

 

IMHO, no.

--

~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)

MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002

AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net

DTS-L http://dts-l.net/

 

Penorama wrote:

> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run Scandisk and

> Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer spick and span. Does it

> still

> apply to these days of Windows XP and Vista?

>

> As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance measures every week, but

> would like to know their relevance in the present day software

> environment.

>

> Thanks.

Guest Tim Slattery

Guest Tim Slattery

Posted
Posted

Re: Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

 

Penorama <Penorama@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run Scandisk and

>Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer spick and span. Does it still

>apply to these days of Windows XP and Vista?

 

Not as much. Fragmentation is not nearly as big a deal in NTFS as in

FAT file systems.

 

--

Tim Slattery

MS MVP(Shell/User)

Slattery_T@bls.gov

http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

Guest JS

Guest JS

Posted
Posted

Re: Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

 

You are over doing it.

Defragmentation in XP is not nearly as critical to performance as is was in

Win98.

 

Once a month should be just fine, in fact I took a look just now at the last

time I defragmented my C: drive and it was more than four months ago and I

haven't noticed any significant drop in performance.

 

JS

 

"Penorama" <Penorama@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:A337E676-9FE7-484C-9E62-F675F87F581F@microsoft.com...

> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run Scandisk and

> Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer spick and span. Does it

> still

> apply to these days of Windows XP and Vista?

>

> As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance measures every week, but

> would like to know their relevance in the present day software

> environment.

>

> Thanks.

Guest Bob I

Guest Bob I

Posted
Posted

Re: Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

 

Oh every 6 months or so, give or take 2 or 3.

 

Penorama wrote:

> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run Scandisk and

> Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer spick and span. Does it still

> apply to these days of Windows XP and Vista?

>

> As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance measures every week, but

> would like to know their relevance in the present day software environment.

>

> Thanks.

Guest HeyBub

Guest HeyBub

Posted
Posted

Re: Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

 

Penorama wrote:

> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run Scandisk

> and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer spick and span.

> Does it still apply to these days of Windows XP and Vista?

>

> As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance measures every

> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present day

> software environment.

>

 

[Joke shortened]

 

Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish theater

around the turn of the last century.

 

From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out: "Give him an

enema!"

 

The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"

 

Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it can't hurt."

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Posted
Posted

Re: Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

 

The joke doesn't apply. Unnecessary defragging will simply wear the disk out

faster for no good reason.

 

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://grystmill.com

 

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:OcpUStJCJHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Penorama wrote:

>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run Scandisk

>> and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer spick and span.

>> Does it still apply to these days of Windows XP and Vista?

>>

>> As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance measures every

>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present day

>> software environment.

>>

>

> [Joke shortened]

>

> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish theater

> around the turn of the last century.

>

> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out: "Give him

> an enema!"

>

> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"

>

> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it can't hurt."

>

Guest PA Bear [MS MVP]

Guest PA Bear [MS MVP]

Posted
Posted

Re: Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

 

HeyBub wrote:

> Penorama wrote:

>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run Scandisk

>> and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer spick and span.

>> Does it still apply to these days of Windows XP and Vista?

>>

>> As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance measures every

>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present day

>> software environment.

>>

>

> [Joke shortened]

>

> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish theater

> around the turn of the last century.

>

> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out: "Give him

> an

> enema!"

>

> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"

>

> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it can't hurt."

 

<rimshot>

Guest Unknown

Guest Unknown

Posted
Posted

Re: Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

 

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Granted, disks wear out.

However, as a product, they have a life expectancy.

If a disk fails chances are it won't be because of defragging. Did it ever

occur to you that there could be MORE wear if it is NOT defragged?

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:uTcPTxJCJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> The joke doesn't apply. Unnecessary defragging will simply wear the disk

> out faster for no good reason.

>

> --

> Gary S. Terhune

> MS-MVP Shell/User

> http://grystmill.com

>

> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:OcpUStJCJHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> Penorama wrote:

>>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run Scandisk

>>> and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer spick and span.

>>> Does it still apply to these days of Windows XP and Vista?

>>>

>>> As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance measures every

>>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present day

>>> software environment.

>>>

>>

>> [Joke shortened]

>>

>> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish theater

>> around the turn of the last century.

>>

>> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out: "Give him

>> an enema!"

>>

>> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"

>>

>> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it can't hurt."

>>

>

>

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Posted
Posted

Re: Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

 

There's a balance to be struck. Of course a heavily fragmented disk will

endure more wear, but overuse of defrag will do the same.

 

And of course fewer disks wear out due to excessive defragging. It's more

the opposite. The vast majority of them are of the first type -- not enough

defragging, rather than too much. But that doesn't make my statement

ridiculous. It's a true statement.

 

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://grystmill.com

 

"Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message

news:EqBtk.19431$jI5.568@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...

> That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Granted, disks wear out.

> However, as a product, they have a life expectancy.

> If a disk fails chances are it won't be because of defragging. Did it ever

> occur to you that there could be MORE wear if it is NOT defragged?

> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> news:uTcPTxJCJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> The joke doesn't apply. Unnecessary defragging will simply wear the disk

>> out faster for no good reason.

>>

>> --

>> Gary S. Terhune

>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>> http://grystmill.com

>>

>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:OcpUStJCJHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>> Penorama wrote:

>>>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run Scandisk

>>>> and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer spick and span.

>>>> Does it still apply to these days of Windows XP and Vista?

>>>>

>>>> As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance measures every

>>>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present day

>>>> software environment.

>>>>

>>>

>>> [Joke shortened]

>>>

>>> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish theater

>>> around the turn of the last century.

>>>

>>> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out: "Give him

>>> an enema!"

>>>

>>> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"

>>>

>>> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it can't hurt."

>>>

>>

>>

>

>

Guest Twayne

Guest Twayne

Posted
Posted

Re: Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

 

> There's a balance to be struck. Of course a heavily fragmented disk

> will endure more wear, but overuse of defrag will do the same.

>

> And of course fewer disks wear out due to excessive defragging. It's

> more the opposite. The vast majority of them are of the first type --

> not enough defragging, rather than too much. But that doesn't make my

> statement ridiculous. It's a true statement.

 

In reality there are so many other variables involved in these scenarios

that generalizations can be made but that's about all. I seriously

doubt the two camps here actually cover the reality of disk failure.

One would be hard pressed to even get empirical evidence of either case.

In my experience the reasons for disk failures have ranged from worn

out bearings to dust (broken seals) to a platter's head failure to head

misalignments due to rough handling, to ... you name it. Then that

takes you into areas such as whether it's best to leave the disk

spinning or shut it down during periods of non-use, etc. etc. etc..

I've never seen one that indicated the problem was attributed to

excessive head movement of any kind where the head just wasn't able to

move; something you can easily hear in nearly 100% of the drives ever

made.

 

Not trying to do an ego boost for myself here; just trying to indicate

that it's sort of a moot point about defrag or not from a mechanical

viewpoint. As long as the hermetic seal remains in tact, there should

be little to wear out except for grease moving out of its intended place

and not getting used, which IME has always been what crashes disks early

in their lives. Somewhere I have a white paper on this from some lab

but I can't find it now of course!

 

Cheers,

 

Twayne

>

>

> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message

> news:EqBtk.19431$jI5.568@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...

>> That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Granted, disks wear out.

>> However, as a product, they have a life expectancy.

>> If a disk fails chances are it won't be because of defragging. Did

>> it ever occur to you that there could be MORE wear if it is NOT

>> defragged? "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>> news:uTcPTxJCJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> The joke doesn't apply. Unnecessary defragging will simply wear the

>>> disk out faster for no good reason.

>>>

>>> --

>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>> http://grystmill.com

>>>

>>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:OcpUStJCJHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>> Penorama wrote:

>>>>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run

>>>>> Scandisk and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer spick

>>>>> and span. Does it still apply to these days of Windows XP and

>>>>> Vista? As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance measures

>>>>> every

>>>>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present day

>>>>> software environment.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> [Joke shortened]

>>>>

>>>> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish

>>>> theater around the turn of the last century.

>>>>

>>>> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out:

>>>> "Give him an enema!"

>>>>

>>>> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"

>>>>

>>>> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it can't

>>>> hurt."

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Posted
Posted

Re: Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

 

Thanks for the elucidation, but it seems to me that you're just describing

the ways in which disks wear out. Are you claiming that the amount of use,

specifically the amount of head movement, does not play any role in causing

at least some of those issues to arise, subsequently leading to failure?

Speaking, here, of disks that aren't essentially DOA? Ones that have been in

use for some time? I would imagine that bearing failure or seals gone bad

would lead to the highest proportion of failures, failures that could derive

from simply idling for five years or whatever, but other types of failure

surely derive from actual use, as opposed to spinning idly, do they not?

 

Of course I was making a generalization, as was everyone else in the thread

except Unknown, who has a developed a hobby that consists of seeing if he

can catch me in an error. He is often in error and I feel it's my

responsibility to correct those errors, which had caused him to develop

resentment, etc.

 

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://grystmill.com

 

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message

news:%23HjZELfCJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> There's a balance to be struck. Of course a heavily fragmented disk

>> will endure more wear, but overuse of defrag will do the same.

>>

>> And of course fewer disks wear out due to excessive defragging. It's

>> more the opposite. The vast majority of them are of the first type --

>> not enough defragging, rather than too much. But that doesn't make my

>> statement ridiculous. It's a true statement.

>

> In reality there are so many other variables involved in these scenarios

> that generalizations can be made but that's about all. I seriously doubt

> the two camps here actually cover the reality of disk failure. One would

> be hard pressed to even get empirical evidence of either case.

> In my experience the reasons for disk failures have ranged from worn out

> bearings to dust (broken seals) to a platter's head failure to head

> misalignments due to rough handling, to ... you name it. Then that takes

> you into areas such as whether it's best to leave the disk spinning or

> shut it down during periods of non-use, etc. etc. etc.. I've never seen

> one that indicated the problem was attributed to excessive head movement

> of any kind where the head just wasn't able to move; something you can

> easily hear in nearly 100% of the drives ever made.

>

> Not trying to do an ego boost for myself here; just trying to indicate

> that it's sort of a moot point about defrag or not from a mechanical

> viewpoint. As long as the hermetic seal remains in tact, there should be

> little to wear out except for grease moving out of its intended place and

> not getting used, which IME has always been what crashes disks early in

> their lives. Somewhere I have a white paper on this from some lab but I

> can't find it now of course!

>

> Cheers,

>

> Twayne

>

>>

>>

>> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message

>> news:EqBtk.19431$jI5.568@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...

>>> That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Granted, disks wear out.

>>> However, as a product, they have a life expectancy.

>>> If a disk fails chances are it won't be because of defragging. Did

>>> it ever occur to you that there could be MORE wear if it is NOT

>>> defragged? "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>> news:uTcPTxJCJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>> The joke doesn't apply. Unnecessary defragging will simply wear the

>>>> disk out faster for no good reason.

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>> http://grystmill.com

>>>>

>>>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:OcpUStJCJHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Penorama wrote:

>>>>>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run

>>>>>> Scandisk and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer spick

>>>>>> and span. Does it still apply to these days of Windows XP and

>>>>>> Vista? As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance measures

>>>>>> every

>>>>>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present day

>>>>>> software environment.

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> [Joke shortened]

>>>>>

>>>>> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish

>>>>> theater around the turn of the last century.

>>>>>

>>>>> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out:

>>>>> "Give him an enema!"

>>>>>

>>>>> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"

>>>>>

>>>>> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it can't

>>>>> hurt."

>

>

>

Guest Twayne

Guest Twayne

Posted
Posted

Re: Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

 

Nah, perish the though of my trying to say anything doesn't play a role

in ... whatever. It's all connected of course and as soon as you try to

say always or never, the gremlins and Murphys will come scrambling in

from every orfice and totally negate any recent well intentioned

allegations<g>.

As you say, it's all generalizations unless we're lucky enough to

work in a lab that specializes in such things or at least have access to

some of their records, many of which are questionable at best anyway.

Actually, if you've ever disassembled any hard drives carefully

enough, it's amazing the heads manage to live as long as they do, buried

in amongst the flying platters and all with what appears at least to me,

to be very flimsy physical structures. At least the magnets are a blast

to play with<g>!

 

I agree with everything you said; no arguement at all in any way. I

think my reaction was more to the point that the discussion seemed to be

assuming that there was only that one single failure mechanism that

meant anything and I wanted to point out that it wasn't going to go

anywhere useful;

 

As for mr unknown, or ms, whatever it may be, some just feel a need to

grasp for their lack of power in the relatively safe ehter of the 'net.

There's quite a mix of ego, personality and covert power plays on the

groups but they're mostly harmless beings<g>.

 

Cheers,

 

Twayne

 

> Thanks for the elucidation, but it seems to me that you're just

> describing the ways in which disks wear out. Are you claiming that

> the amount of use, specifically the amount of head movement, does not

> play any role in causing at least some of those issues to arise,

> subsequently leading to failure? Speaking, here, of disks that aren't

> essentially DOA? Ones that have been in use for some time? I would

> imagine that bearing failure or seals gone bad would lead to the

> highest proportion of failures, failures that could derive from

> simply idling for five years or whatever, but other types of failure

> surely derive from actual use, as opposed to spinning idly, do they

> not?

> Of course I was making a generalization, as was everyone else in the

> thread except Unknown, who has a developed a hobby that consists of

> seeing if he can catch me in an error. He is often in error and I

> feel it's my responsibility to correct those errors, which had caused

> him to develop resentment, etc.

>

>

> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message

> news:%23HjZELfCJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>> There's a balance to be struck. Of course a heavily fragmented disk

>>> will endure more wear, but overuse of defrag will do the same.

>>>

>>> And of course fewer disks wear out due to excessive defragging. It's

>>> more the opposite. The vast majority of them are of the first type

>>> -- not enough defragging, rather than too much. But that doesn't

>>> make my statement ridiculous. It's a true statement.

>>

>> In reality there are so many other variables involved in these

>> scenarios that generalizations can be made but that's about all. I

>> seriously doubt the two camps here actually cover the reality of

>> disk failure. One would be hard pressed to even get empirical

>> evidence of either case. In my experience the reasons for disk

>> failures have ranged from worn out bearings to dust (broken seals) to

>> a platter's head failure to head misalignments due to rough

>> handling, to ... you name it. Then that takes you into areas such

>> as whether it's best to leave the disk spinning or shut it down

>> during periods of non-use, etc. etc. etc.. I've never seen one that

>> indicated the problem was attributed to excessive head movement of

>> any kind where the head just wasn't able to move; something you can

>> easily hear in nearly 100% of the drives ever made. Not trying to do

>> an ego boost for myself here; just trying to

>> indicate that it's sort of a moot point about defrag or not from a

>> mechanical viewpoint. As long as the hermetic seal remains in tact,

>> there should be little to wear out except for grease moving out of

>> its intended place and not getting used, which IME has always been

>> what crashes disks early in their lives. Somewhere I have a white

>> paper on this from some lab but I can't find it now of course!

>>

>> Cheers,

>>

>> Twayne

>>

>>>

>>>

>>> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message

>>> news:EqBtk.19431$jI5.568@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...

>>>> That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Granted, disks wear

>>>> out. However, as a product, they have a life expectancy.

>>>> If a disk fails chances are it won't be because of defragging. Did

>>>> it ever occur to you that there could be MORE wear if it is NOT

>>>> defragged? "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>> news:uTcPTxJCJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>> The joke doesn't apply. Unnecessary defragging will simply wear

>>>>> the disk out faster for no good reason.

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>> http://grystmill.com

>>>>>

>>>>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:OcpUStJCJHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> Penorama wrote:

>>>>>>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run

>>>>>>> Scandisk and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer

>>>>>>> spick and span. Does it still apply to these days of Windows XP

>>>>>>> and Vista? As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance

>>>>>>> measures every

>>>>>>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present day

>>>>>>> software environment.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> [Joke shortened]

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish

>>>>>> theater around the turn of the last century.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out:

>>>>>> "Give him an enema!"

>>>>>>

>>>>>> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it can't

>>>>>> hurt."

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Posted
Posted

Re: Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

 

I liked working in a lab for a couple of years. City water testing and

agricultural testing were the daily grind, but we also had a regular

contract pulling apart 6' lengths of #18 2.25" dia. rebar. 2' between the

jaws, dial-gauges all over the place until it suddenly stretched a foot.

Getting all the gauges off and then finishing the job.That was one honkin'

machine, <g>. When it broke, it shook the neighborhood harder than slamming

freight trains in the yard across the street. Took 425,000 to 450,000 total

pounds, IIRC.

 

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://grystmill.com

 

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message

news:%23wqVs2iCJHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Nah, perish the though of my trying to say anything doesn't play a role in

> ... whatever. It's all connected of course and as soon as you try to say

> always or never, the gremlins and Murphys will come scrambling in from

> every orfice and totally negate any recent well intentioned

> allegations<g>.

> As you say, it's all generalizations unless we're lucky enough to work

> in a lab that specializes in such things or at least have access to some

> of their records, many of which are questionable at best anyway.

> Actually, if you've ever disassembled any hard drives carefully enough,

> it's amazing the heads manage to live as long as they do, buried in

> amongst the flying platters and all with what appears at least to me, to

> be very flimsy physical structures. At least the magnets are a blast to

> play with<g>!

>

> I agree with everything you said; no arguement at all in any way. I think

> my reaction was more to the point that the discussion seemed to be

> assuming that there was only that one single failure mechanism that meant

> anything and I wanted to point out that it wasn't going to go anywhere

> useful;

>

> As for mr unknown, or ms, whatever it may be, some just feel a need to

> grasp for their lack of power in the relatively safe ehter of the 'net.

> There's quite a mix of ego, personality and covert power plays on the

> groups but they're mostly harmless beings<g>.

>

> Cheers,

>

> Twayne

>

>

>> Thanks for the elucidation, but it seems to me that you're just

>> describing the ways in which disks wear out. Are you claiming that

>> the amount of use, specifically the amount of head movement, does not

>> play any role in causing at least some of those issues to arise,

>> subsequently leading to failure? Speaking, here, of disks that aren't

>> essentially DOA? Ones that have been in use for some time? I would

>> imagine that bearing failure or seals gone bad would lead to the

>> highest proportion of failures, failures that could derive from

>> simply idling for five years or whatever, but other types of failure

>> surely derive from actual use, as opposed to spinning idly, do they

>> not?

>> Of course I was making a generalization, as was everyone else in the

>> thread except Unknown, who has a developed a hobby that consists of

>> seeing if he can catch me in an error. He is often in error and I

>> feel it's my responsibility to correct those errors, which had caused

>> him to develop resentment, etc.

>>

>>

>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message

>> news:%23HjZELfCJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>> There's a balance to be struck. Of course a heavily fragmented disk

>>>> will endure more wear, but overuse of defrag will do the same.

>>>>

>>>> And of course fewer disks wear out due to excessive defragging. It's

>>>> more the opposite. The vast majority of them are of the first type

>>>> -- not enough defragging, rather than too much. But that doesn't

>>>> make my statement ridiculous. It's a true statement.

>>>

>>> In reality there are so many other variables involved in these

>>> scenarios that generalizations can be made but that's about all. I

>>> seriously doubt the two camps here actually cover the reality of

>>> disk failure. One would be hard pressed to even get empirical

>>> evidence of either case. In my experience the reasons for disk

>>> failures have ranged from worn out bearings to dust (broken seals) to a

>>> platter's head failure to head misalignments due to rough

>>> handling, to ... you name it. Then that takes you into areas such

>>> as whether it's best to leave the disk spinning or shut it down

>>> during periods of non-use, etc. etc. etc.. I've never seen one that

>>> indicated the problem was attributed to excessive head movement of

>>> any kind where the head just wasn't able to move; something you can

>>> easily hear in nearly 100% of the drives ever made. Not trying to do an

>>> ego boost for myself here; just trying to

>>> indicate that it's sort of a moot point about defrag or not from a

>>> mechanical viewpoint. As long as the hermetic seal remains in tact,

>>> there should be little to wear out except for grease moving out of

>>> its intended place and not getting used, which IME has always been

>>> what crashes disks early in their lives. Somewhere I have a white

>>> paper on this from some lab but I can't find it now of course!

>>>

>>> Cheers,

>>>

>>> Twayne

>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message

>>>> news:EqBtk.19431$jI5.568@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...

>>>>> That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Granted, disks wear

>>>>> out. However, as a product, they have a life expectancy.

>>>>> If a disk fails chances are it won't be because of defragging. Did

>>>>> it ever occur to you that there could be MORE wear if it is NOT

>>>>> defragged? "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>> news:uTcPTxJCJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> The joke doesn't apply. Unnecessary defragging will simply wear

>>>>>> the disk out faster for no good reason.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>> http://grystmill.com

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:OcpUStJCJHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>> Penorama wrote:

>>>>>>>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run

>>>>>>>> Scandisk and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer

>>>>>>>> spick and span. Does it still apply to these days of Windows XP

>>>>>>>> and Vista? As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance

>>>>>>>> measures every

>>>>>>>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present day

>>>>>>>> software environment.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> [Joke shortened]

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish

>>>>>>> theater around the turn of the last century.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out:

>>>>>>> "Give him an enema!"

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it can't

>>>>>>> hurt."

>

>

>

Guest Twayne

Guest Twayne

Posted
Posted

Re: Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

 

> I liked working in a lab for a couple of years. City water testing and

> agricultural testing were the daily grind, but we also had a regular

> contract pulling apart 6' lengths of #18 2.25" dia. rebar. 2' between

> the jaws, dial-gauges all over the place until it suddenly stretched

> a foot. Getting all the gauges off and then finishing the job.That

> was one honkin' machine, <g>. When it broke, it shook the

> neighborhood harder than slamming freight trains in the yard across

> the street. Took 425,000 to 450,000 total pounds, IIRC.

 

Ouch! That took a couple of decent sized machines! Sounds like fun the

first couple of times at least.

 

Cheers,

 

>

>

> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message

> news:%23wqVs2iCJHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Nah, perish the though of my trying to say anything doesn't play a

>> role in ... whatever. It's all connected of course and as soon as

>> you try to say always or never, the gremlins and Murphys will come

>> scrambling in from every orfice and totally negate any recent well

>> intentioned allegations<g>.

>> As you say, it's all generalizations unless we're lucky enough to

>> work in a lab that specializes in such things or at least have

>> access to some of their records, many of which are questionable at

>> best anyway. Actually, if you've ever disassembled any hard drives

>> carefully enough, it's amazing the heads manage to live as long as

>> they do, buried in amongst the flying platters and all with what

>> appears at least to me, to be very flimsy physical structures. At

>> least the magnets are a blast to play with<g>!

>>

>> I agree with everything you said; no arguement at all in any way. I

>> think my reaction was more to the point that the discussion seemed

>> to be assuming that there was only that one single failure mechanism

>> that meant anything and I wanted to point out that it wasn't going

>> to go anywhere useful;

>>

>> As for mr unknown, or ms, whatever it may be, some just feel a need

>> to grasp for their lack of power in the relatively safe ehter of the

>> 'net. There's quite a mix of ego, personality and covert power plays

>> on the groups but they're mostly harmless beings<g>.

>>

>> Cheers,

>>

>> Twayne

>>

>>

>>> Thanks for the elucidation, but it seems to me that you're just

>>> describing the ways in which disks wear out. Are you claiming that

>>> the amount of use, specifically the amount of head movement, does

>>> not play any role in causing at least some of those issues to arise,

>>> subsequently leading to failure? Speaking, here, of disks that

>>> aren't essentially DOA? Ones that have been in use for some time? I

>>> would imagine that bearing failure or seals gone bad would lead to

>>> the highest proportion of failures, failures that could derive from

>>> simply idling for five years or whatever, but other types of failure

>>> surely derive from actual use, as opposed to spinning idly, do they

>>> not?

>>> Of course I was making a generalization, as was everyone else in the

>>> thread except Unknown, who has a developed a hobby that consists of

>>> seeing if he can catch me in an error. He is often in error and I

>>> feel it's my responsibility to correct those errors, which had

>>> caused him to develop resentment, etc.

>>>

>>>

>>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message

>>> news:%23HjZELfCJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>> There's a balance to be struck. Of course a heavily fragmented

>>>>> disk will endure more wear, but overuse of defrag will do the

>>>>> same. And of course fewer disks wear out due to excessive

>>>>> defragging.

>>>>> It's more the opposite. The vast majority of them are of the

>>>>> first type -- not enough defragging, rather than too much. But

>>>>> that doesn't make my statement ridiculous. It's a true statement.

>>>>

>>>> In reality there are so many other variables involved in these

>>>> scenarios that generalizations can be made but that's about all. I

>>>> seriously doubt the two camps here actually cover the reality of

>>>> disk failure. One would be hard pressed to even get empirical

>>>> evidence of either case. In my experience the reasons for disk

>>>> failures have ranged from worn out bearings to dust (broken seals)

>>>> to a platter's head failure to head misalignments due to rough

>>>> handling, to ... you name it. Then that takes you into areas such

>>>> as whether it's best to leave the disk spinning or shut it down

>>>> during periods of non-use, etc. etc. etc.. I've never seen one that

>>>> indicated the problem was attributed to excessive head movement of

>>>> any kind where the head just wasn't able to move; something you can

>>>> easily hear in nearly 100% of the drives ever made. Not trying to

>>>> do an ego boost for myself here; just trying to

>>>> indicate that it's sort of a moot point about defrag or not from a

>>>> mechanical viewpoint. As long as the hermetic seal remains in

>>>> tact, there should be little to wear out except for grease moving

>>>> out of its intended place and not getting used, which IME has

>>>> always been

>>>> what crashes disks early in their lives. Somewhere I have a white

>>>> paper on this from some lab but I can't find it now of course!

>>>>

>>>> Cheers,

>>>>

>>>> Twayne

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message

>>>>> news:EqBtk.19431$jI5.568@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...

>>>>>> That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Granted, disks wear

>>>>>> out. However, as a product, they have a life expectancy.

>>>>>> If a disk fails chances are it won't be because of defragging.

>>>>>> Did it ever occur to you that there could be MORE wear if it is

>>>>>> NOT defragged? "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:uTcPTxJCJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>> The joke doesn't apply. Unnecessary defragging will simply wear

>>>>>>> the disk out faster for no good reason.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>> http://grystmill.com

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:OcpUStJCJHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>> Penorama wrote:

>>>>>>>>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run

>>>>>>>>> Scandisk and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer

>>>>>>>>> spick and span. Does it still apply to these days of Windows

>>>>>>>>> XP and Vista? As a matter of fact I carry out these

>>>>>>>>> maintenance measures every

>>>>>>>>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present

>>>>>>>>> day software environment.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> [Joke shortened]

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish

>>>>>>>> theater around the turn of the last century.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out:

>>>>>>>> "Give him an enema!"

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it

>>>>>>>> can't hurt."

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Posted
Posted

Re: Disk Scanning & Defragmentation

 

Just a lot of steel and hydraulics.

 

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://grystmill.com

 

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message

news:%23wxgWavCJHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> I liked working in a lab for a couple of years. City water testing and

>> agricultural testing were the daily grind, but we also had a regular

>> contract pulling apart 6' lengths of #18 2.25" dia. rebar. 2' between

>> the jaws, dial-gauges all over the place until it suddenly stretched

>> a foot. Getting all the gauges off and then finishing the job.That

>> was one honkin' machine, <g>. When it broke, it shook the

>> neighborhood harder than slamming freight trains in the yard across

>> the street. Took 425,000 to 450,000 total pounds, IIRC.

>

> Ouch! That took a couple of decent sized machines! Sounds like fun the

> first couple of times at least.

>

> Cheers,

>

>

>>

>>

>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message

>> news:%23wqVs2iCJHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>> Nah, perish the though of my trying to say anything doesn't play a

>>> role in ... whatever. It's all connected of course and as soon as

>>> you try to say always or never, the gremlins and Murphys will come

>>> scrambling in from every orfice and totally negate any recent well

>>> intentioned allegations<g>.

>>> As you say, it's all generalizations unless we're lucky enough to

>>> work in a lab that specializes in such things or at least have

>>> access to some of their records, many of which are questionable at

>>> best anyway. Actually, if you've ever disassembled any hard drives

>>> carefully enough, it's amazing the heads manage to live as long as

>>> they do, buried in amongst the flying platters and all with what

>>> appears at least to me, to be very flimsy physical structures. At

>>> least the magnets are a blast to play with<g>!

>>>

>>> I agree with everything you said; no arguement at all in any way. I

>>> think my reaction was more to the point that the discussion seemed

>>> to be assuming that there was only that one single failure mechanism

>>> that meant anything and I wanted to point out that it wasn't going

>>> to go anywhere useful;

>>>

>>> As for mr unknown, or ms, whatever it may be, some just feel a need

>>> to grasp for their lack of power in the relatively safe ehter of the

>>> 'net. There's quite a mix of ego, personality and covert power plays

>>> on the groups but they're mostly harmless beings<g>.

>>>

>>> Cheers,

>>>

>>> Twayne

>>>

>>>

>>>> Thanks for the elucidation, but it seems to me that you're just

>>>> describing the ways in which disks wear out. Are you claiming that

>>>> the amount of use, specifically the amount of head movement, does

>>>> not play any role in causing at least some of those issues to arise,

>>>> subsequently leading to failure? Speaking, here, of disks that

>>>> aren't essentially DOA? Ones that have been in use for some time? I

>>>> would imagine that bearing failure or seals gone bad would lead to

>>>> the highest proportion of failures, failures that could derive from

>>>> simply idling for five years or whatever, but other types of failure

>>>> surely derive from actual use, as opposed to spinning idly, do they

>>>> not?

>>>> Of course I was making a generalization, as was everyone else in the

>>>> thread except Unknown, who has a developed a hobby that consists of

>>>> seeing if he can catch me in an error. He is often in error and I

>>>> feel it's my responsibility to correct those errors, which had

>>>> caused him to develop resentment, etc.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:%23HjZELfCJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> There's a balance to be struck. Of course a heavily fragmented

>>>>>> disk will endure more wear, but overuse of defrag will do the

>>>>>> same. And of course fewer disks wear out due to excessive defragging.

>>>>>> It's more the opposite. The vast majority of them are of the

>>>>>> first type -- not enough defragging, rather than too much. But

>>>>>> that doesn't make my statement ridiculous. It's a true statement.

>>>>>

>>>>> In reality there are so many other variables involved in these

>>>>> scenarios that generalizations can be made but that's about all. I

>>>>> seriously doubt the two camps here actually cover the reality of

>>>>> disk failure. One would be hard pressed to even get empirical

>>>>> evidence of either case. In my experience the reasons for disk

>>>>> failures have ranged from worn out bearings to dust (broken seals)

>>>>> to a platter's head failure to head misalignments due to rough

>>>>> handling, to ... you name it. Then that takes you into areas such

>>>>> as whether it's best to leave the disk spinning or shut it down

>>>>> during periods of non-use, etc. etc. etc.. I've never seen one that

>>>>> indicated the problem was attributed to excessive head movement of

>>>>> any kind where the head just wasn't able to move; something you can

>>>>> easily hear in nearly 100% of the drives ever made. Not trying to

>>>>> do an ego boost for myself here; just trying to

>>>>> indicate that it's sort of a moot point about defrag or not from a

>>>>> mechanical viewpoint. As long as the hermetic seal remains in

>>>>> tact, there should be little to wear out except for grease moving

>>>>> out of its intended place and not getting used, which IME has always

>>>>> been

>>>>> what crashes disks early in their lives. Somewhere I have a white

>>>>> paper on this from some lab but I can't find it now of course!

>>>>>

>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>

>>>>> Twayne

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:EqBtk.19431$jI5.568@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...

>>>>>>> That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Granted, disks wear

>>>>>>> out. However, as a product, they have a life expectancy.

>>>>>>> If a disk fails chances are it won't be because of defragging.

>>>>>>> Did it ever occur to you that there could be MORE wear if it is

>>>>>>> NOT defragged? "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:uTcPTxJCJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>> The joke doesn't apply. Unnecessary defragging will simply wear

>>>>>>>> the disk out faster for no good reason.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>> http://grystmill.com

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:OcpUStJCJHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>> Penorama wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run

>>>>>>>>>> Scandisk and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer

>>>>>>>>>> spick and span. Does it still apply to these days of Windows

>>>>>>>>>> XP and Vista? As a matter of fact I carry out these

>>>>>>>>>> maintenance measures every

>>>>>>>>>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present

>>>>>>>>>> day software environment.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> [Joke shortened]

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish

>>>>>>>>> theater around the turn of the last century.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out:

>>>>>>>>> "Give him an enema!"

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it

>>>>>>>>> can't hurt."

>

>

>

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...