Fragmentation of large video file

[Guest Stan Hilliard]

OS=Windows XP Pro SP2

I downloaded a 1 hour video, file dn008.0318.mp4 from democracynow.com

using the video player Miro.exe.

 

The 451,294 KB, file had 6,264 fragments. When I use this process I

typically get this degree of high fragmentation.

 

Q1 - Is such high fragmentation to be expected with video files? Or

does this indicate that I have a problem?

 

Windows defrag couldn't defrag it (or several other video files.)

Piniform defraggler showed 3 fragments after Defragging it.

 

Information will be appreciated,

Stan Hilliard

[Guest Alec S.]

Re: Fragmentation of large video file

 

Stan Hilliard wrote (in news:ueahb4p28dsntiqvlifk2n1amghlrpo13m@4ax.com):

> The 451,294 KB, file had 6,264 fragments. When I use this process I

> typically get this degree of high fragmentation.

>

> Q1 - Is such high fragmentation to be expected with video files? Or

> does this indicate that I have a problem?

 

The more you create, move, and delete, files, the more and more fragmented the

disk becomes. That’s just how filesystems work. If they were to rearrange all

files every time you performed a file operation, performance would be horrible

and the disk would wear out quickly. That’s why you’re really only supposed to

do a defrag once a week, or maybe day.

 

A 450MB file is pretty big and requires a whole lot of clusters. If you don’t

have enough free space, then Windows cannot find 450MB worth of consecutive free

clusters in which to place the file, and thus splits it into chunks. The defrag

apps attempt to consolidate the chunks into the fewest, largest chunks they can.

 

Having 6,264 fragments isn’t terrific, but it’s not horrible either. For a file

that big, on a heavily-used disk without tons of free space, it’s pretty

average. If your disk uses a typical 4KB cluster size, that video would need

112,824 clusters, which means that it has 5.55% fragmentation.

 

It is best to clear out as much junk as you can before defragging. Delete temp

files, browser caches, etc. to free up as much space as possible. If a row of

120,000 free clusters is broken by even a single cluster, say a tiny GIF file in

the browser cache, then your video would not fit into it in a single chunk and

would have two fragments.

 

It’s rare that a video is framented enough to impact the performance (ie the

video actually stalls while waiting to be read from the disk). It would have to

have each cluster in a separate fragment, spread out on the disk in an

unrealistic pattern, and the disk would have to be pretty slow. I doubt you

would notice anything while watching it.

 

That said, having as few fragments as possible makes data recovery much easier

(or in some case possible at all), not to mention general, overall system

performance is improved.

 

 

--

Alec S.

news/alec->synetech/cjb/net

[Guest Stan Hilliard]

Re: Fragmentation of large video file

 

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:24:36 -0400, "Alec S." <@> wrote:

>Stan Hilliard wrote (in news:ueahb4p28dsntiqvlifk2n1amghlrpo13m@4ax.com):

>

>> The 451,294 KB, file had 6,264 fragments. When I use this process I

>> typically get this degree of high fragmentation.

>>

>> Q1 - Is such high fragmentation to be expected with video files? Or

>> does this indicate that I have a problem?

>

>The more you create, move, and delete, files, the more and more fragmented the

>disk becomes. That’s just how filesystems work. If they were to rearrange all

>files every time you performed a file operation, performance would be horrible

>and the disk would wear out quickly. That’s why you’re really only supposed to

>do a defrag once a week, or maybe day.

>

>A 450MB file is pretty big and requires a whole lot of clusters. If you don’t

>have enough free space, then Windows cannot find 450MB worth of consecutive free

>clusters in which to place the file, and thus splits it into chunks. The defrag

>apps attempt to consolidate the chunks into the fewest, largest chunks they can.

>

>Having 6,264 fragments isn’t terrific, but it’s not horrible either. For a file

>that big, on a heavily-used disk without tons of free space, it’s pretty

>average. If your disk uses a typical 4KB cluster size, that video would need

>112,824 clusters, which means that it has 5.55% fragmentation.

>

>It is best to clear out as much junk as you can before defragging. Delete temp

>files, browser caches, etc. to free up as much space as possible. If a row of

>120,000 free clusters is broken by even a single cluster, say a tiny GIF file in

>the browser cache, then your video would not fit into it in a single chunk and

>would have two fragments.

>

>It’s rare that a video is framented enough to impact the performance (ie the

>video actually stalls while waiting to be read from the disk). It would have to

>have each cluster in a separate fragment, spread out on the disk in an

>unrealistic pattern, and the disk would have to be pretty slow. I doubt you

>would notice anything while watching it.

>

>That said, having as few fragments as possible makes data recovery much easier

>(or in some case possible at all), not to mention general, overall system

>performance is improved.

>

>

>--

>Alec S.

>news/alec->synetech/cjb/net

 

Thanks Alec,

 

Your explanation suggests to me that I should be defragging the free

space. Isn't XP-Pro smart enough to start saving at the location on

the disk with the most contiguous free space available to hold the

file?

 

Stan Hilliard

[Guest Alec S.]

Re: Fragmentation of large video file

 

Stan Hilliard wrote (in news:i6ghb4dlpd695mt1kleno3jtalapori1ui@4ax.com):

> Your explanation suggests to me that I should be defragging the free space.

 

You should defrag once in a while, but don’t over-do it. If a defrag utilit

analyzes your disk and says that it doesn’t need it, don’t bother unless you

have a good reason; you won’t get any tangible benfit and will just add

unnessceary wear-and-tear.

 

> Isn't XP-Pro smart enough to start saving at the location on the disk with

the most contiguous free space available to hold the file?

 

Windows uses a smart algorithm to determine where to store files. In the really

old days, DOS would just store in the next available cluster, but yes, Windows

does take into account fragmentation and tries to avoid it when possible.

 

--

Alec S.

news/alec->synetech/cjb/net

[Guest Bill Sharpe]

Re: Fragmentation of large video file

 

Stan Hilliard wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:24:36 -0400, "Alec S." <@> wrote:

>

>> Stan Hilliard wrote (in news:ueahb4p28dsntiqvlifk2n1amghlrpo13m@4ax.com):

>>

>>> The 451,294 KB, file had 6,264 fragments. When I use this process I

>>> typically get this degree of high fragmentation.

>>>

>>> Q1 - Is such high fragmentation to be expected with video files? Or

>>> does this indicate that I have a problem?

>> The more you create, move, and delete, files, the more and more fragmented the

>> disk becomes. That’s just how filesystems work. If they were to rearrange all

>> files every time you performed a file operation, performance would be horrible

>> and the disk would wear out quickly. That’s why you’re really only supposed to

>> do a defrag once a week, or maybe day.

>>

>> A 450MB file is pretty big and requires a whole lot of clusters. If you don’t

>> have enough free space, then Windows cannot find 450MB worth of consecutive free

>> clusters in which to place the file, and thus splits it into chunks. The defrag

>> apps attempt to consolidate the chunks into the fewest, largest chunks they can.

>>

>> Having 6,264 fragments isn’t terrific, but it’s not horrible either. For a file

>> that big, on a heavily-used disk without tons of free space, it’s pretty

>> average. If your disk uses a typical 4KB cluster size, that video would need

>> 112,824 clusters, which means that it has 5.55% fragmentation.

>>

>> It is best to clear out as much junk as you can before defragging. Delete temp

>> files, browser caches, etc. to free up as much space as possible. If a row of

>> 120,000 free clusters is broken by even a single cluster, say a tiny GIF file in

>> the browser cache, then your video would not fit into it in a single chunk and

>> would have two fragments.

>>

>> It’s rare that a video is framented enough to impact the performance (ie the

>> video actually stalls while waiting to be read from the disk). It would have to

>> have each cluster in a separate fragment, spread out on the disk in an

>> unrealistic pattern, and the disk would have to be pretty slow. I doubt you

>> would notice anything while watching it.

>>

>> That said, having as few fragments as possible makes data recovery much easier

>> (or in some case possible at all), not to mention general, overall system

>> performance is improved.

>>

>>

>> --

>> Alec S.

>> news/alec->synetech/cjb/net

>

> Thanks Alec,

>

> Your explanation suggests to me that I should be defragging the free

> space. Isn't XP-Pro smart enough to start saving at the location on

> the disk with the most contiguous free space available to hold the

> file?

>

> Stan Hilliard

>

If the video plays without stuttering or breaking up I'd say don't worry

about the amount of fragmentation.

 

Bill

[Guest Twayne]

Re: Fragmentation of large video file

 

> OS=Windows XP Pro SP2

> I downloaded a 1 hour video, file dn008.0318.mp4 from democracynow.com

> using the video player Miro.exe.

>

> The 451,294 KB, file had 6,264 fragments. When I use this process I

> typically get this degree of high fragmentation.

>

> Q1 - Is such high fragmentation to be expected with video files? Or

> does this indicate that I have a problem?

>

> Windows defrag couldn't defrag it (or several other video files.)

> Piniform defraggler showed 3 fragments after Defragging it.

>

> Information will be appreciated,

> Stan Hilliard

 

It isn't literally the number of fragments that is a problem. More

important is where the fragments are located. And you can't tell that

from most defrag maps, BTW. If all the fragments are located in the

same general area of the disk, it's likely it'll never be noticed in any

way; the heads get to the data almost as fast as if they were

contiguous. If however the fragments are spread all over the platters

so the head has to constantly go from the inside to the outside, jump to

the middle, then back out, etc. etc. etc., you're a lot more likely to

notice the fragmentation, especially in video. Other factors of course

are the number of platters, heads and speed (rpm) of the drive, buffer

size, how it handles look-aheads, etc etc etc..

Windows takes most of that into consideration when it recommends or

not to defrag a drive. That's why occasionlly you'll see it say no need

to defrag the 7,000 fragments but another time it'll say the drive is

badly fragmented, but there will only be, say, 1,000 fragments in the

largest fragmented file. So, the quantity isn't the important number:

The work and access speed of the drive are the important numbers.

 

IMO defragging has no bearing on "wear and tear" on a drive; it's

irrelevant. If the MTBF on a disk is 5 years, you will not get ten

years out of it by doing exactly half of the accesses that would occur

in the five years. It just doesn't work like that.

 

It's worthwhile for most to pay attention to how long it takes to defrag

their drives for awhile, and then develop a schecule for it that

accomodates it. If you defrag too little, the defrags take longer to

run. If you defrag more often, they will take less time to run.

Eventually you'll reach a point where more frequent defrags don't run

any faster than the previous, so ... there abouts is your magic time

frame.

In my case that's about once a month most of the time. But, should I

happen to be doing video editing and rendering, then I defrag after

every session and before I start the next. When you get into things

where huge masses of data are being moved, created, deleted and

modified, fragmentation happens quickly. I even had a separate physical

drive for that work so that only one drive needs to be defragged and

kept track of.

 

That's my 2 ¢ anyway,

 

Twayne

[Guest Alec S.]

Re: Fragmentation of large video file

 

Twayne wrote (in news:uc5natvCJHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl):

> IMO defragging has no bearing on "wear and tear" on a drive; it's

> irrelevant. If the MTBF on a disk is 5 years, you will not get ten

> years out of it by doing exactly half of the accesses that would occur

> in the five years. It just doesn't work like that.

 

Sure it does. The more the head has to move back and forth, the quicker the

armateur will fail and the greater the chance of the head crashing. Granted,

drives today are built much better than in the past (although even that’s

debateable), but that does not change the fact that the more that phyiscal parts

move, the faster they will fail.

 

The M in MTBF stands for mean, in other words, an MTBF of five years means that

/on average/, it will be five years between failures, but it depends on usage,

environment, etc. If you use the crap out of the drive, it *is* usually going to

die sooner than one that’s idling most of the time. Of course it depends on the

activity and parts involved. For example, defragging alot would result in the

heads/arms dying quicker, but not the spindle, but powering up/down a lot

*would* cause the spindle to die because of the frequent spin-up/down.

 

Think about your body. Doing a lot of reading would wear your eyes, doing a lot

of typing/writing would wear your arms and fingers, doing a lot of weightlifting

would wear your joints and knees; and this is with organic systems that can

repair themselves!

 

It’s not really simple, there are confounding factors, but yes, generally

speaking, you don’t want to over-do it with defragging; at best it just wastes

electricity and creates heat without providing much in return (unless you’re

obsessive coumpulsive and need it nice and organized). If solid-state drives

could be created with something more resiliant and faster than flash-RAM, then

drives would become really amazing: very fast, cool, low-power, and reliable.

 

--

Alec S.

news/alec->synetech/cjb/net

[Guest Onsokumaru]

Re: Fragmentation of large video file

 

 

"Alec S." <@> wrote in message news:uwxYmkxCJHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Twayne wrote (in news:uc5natvCJHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl):

>

>> IMO defragging has no bearing on "wear and tear" on a drive; it's

>> irrelevant. If the MTBF on a disk is 5 years, you will not get ten

>> years out of it by doing exactly half of the accesses that would occur

>> in the five years. It just doesn't work like that.

>

> Sure it does. The more the head has to move back and forth, the quicker

> the

> armateur will fail and the greater the chance of the head crashing.

> Granted,

> drives today are built much better than in the past (although even that's

> debateable), but that does not change the fact that the more that phyiscal

> parts

> move, the faster they will fail.

>

> The M in MTBF stands for mean, in other words, an MTBF of five years means

> that

> /on average/, it will be five years between failures, but it depends on

> usage,

> environment, etc. If you use the crap out of the drive, it *is* usually

> going to

> die sooner than one that's idling most of the time. Of course it depends

> on the

> activity and parts involved. For example, defragging alot would result in

> the

> heads/arms dying quicker, but not the spindle, but powering up/down a lot

> *would* cause the spindle to die because of the frequent spin-up/down.

>

> Think about your body. Doing a lot of reading would wear your eyes, doing

> a lot

> of typing/writing would wear your arms and fingers, doing a lot of

> weightlifting

> would wear your joints and knees; and this is with organic systems that

> can

> repair themselves!

>

>

 

A very poor analogy - doing nothing will cause your body to atrophy, and

performance will be extremely low - far lower than remaining active.

 

You don't, "wear out", your eyes by reading, you can damage them by abusing

them, but not wear them out.

 

Do you, "not think", in order to save your brain?

 

MTBF isn't measured by running a drive till it dies.

http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/perf/qual/specMTBF.html

 

Of course using a device causes wear, and it will wear out eventually be

being used, but if the HDD is active the amount of extra time spent

defragging is probably so small it's not worth thinking about.

 

Of course if you set your machine to defrag every minute, then the amount of

time would be significant.

 

You would have to know exactly when the drive would fail to measure the

impact, but I doubt many people wait till the drive fails, then add up the

time they spent defragging and curse those lost hours.

 

It's more like saying you won't drive your car one extra mile a week because

over a year you will, "lose", fifty two miles, and you could have travelled

that much further before the car broke down.

[Guest Twayne]

Re: Fragmentation of large video file

 

> Twayne wrote (in news:uc5natvCJHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl):

>

>> IMO defragging has no bearing on "wear and tear" on a drive; it's

>> irrelevant. If the MTBF on a disk is 5 years, you will not get ten

>> years out of it by doing exactly half of the accesses that would

>> occur in the five years. It just doesn't work like that.

>

> Sure it does. The more the head has to move back and forth, the

> quicker the armateur will fail and the greater the chance of the head

> crashing. Granted, drives today are built much better than in the

> past (although even that’s debateable), but that does not change the

> fact that the more that phyiscal parts move, the faster they will

> fail.

 

Yes; the more physical parts move, the more they wear. But you are

assessing much more import to it in this instance than is reasonable;

it's a negligible fact within the forest of facts that lead up to a

drive failure.

If head movement due to defrag were the only thing involved, and

defrag was the only thing that made the heads move, your conjecture

might have something to it. But that is not the real world.

 

Again I recommend you do more research if this is an important issue

to you because it's negligible in the overall scheme of things. You are

producing seemingly logical proposals which could only be true in a

controlled, specific-activity session of the drives.

The number of "normal" (of which the variations are likely almost

infinite) head movements, reads and writes if much much higher than any

defrag run at even weekly or daily intervals.

The vast majority of the time, even when the machine is sitting

idle, the heads may be in service, doing some of the many background

tasks normally accomplished in any operating system. You would have to

create a very specific, controlled situation for your conjecture to

become more than negligible.

Using your logic, keeping a drive fully fragmented would result in

almost no wear of the heads because they would never have far to move

and fewer occasions to move.

>

> The M in MTBF stands for mean, in other words, an MTBF of five years

> means that /on average/, it will be five years between failures, but

> it depends on usage, environment, etc. If you use the crap out of the

> drive, it *is* usually going to die sooner than one that’s idling

> most of the time. Of course it depends on the activity and parts

> involved. For example, defragging alot would result in the heads/arms

> dying quicker, but not the spindle, but powering up/down a lot

> *would* cause the spindle to die because of the frequent

> spin-up/down.

 

M stands for "Mean"; right. However, "Mean" does NOT mean "average".

Again, more research on your part would clarify this for you. And, once

more, if the ONLY thing going on was what you describe, your conjecture

might become more than moot. But again, I say, do some research on the

subject and become more informed on these things and you will understand

them better. Holding fast to one logical assumption you have made at

the expense of ignoring all others is not the way to figure these things

out. You need the forest, not just a couple of trees in the forest of

interest.

>

> Think about your body. Doing a lot of reading would wear your eyes,

> doing a lot of typing/writing would wear your arms and fingers, doing

> a lot of weightlifting would wear your joints and knees; and this is

> with organic systems that can repair themselves!

 

Nah, bad analogy and again, it ignores the many other things that have

an impact on such things. e.g. reading does NOT "wear" your eyes. Your

eyes are "seeing" 24/7, even while you're asleep, and muscle movement is

nearly constant. Eye movement is even noticeable to others during

certain stages of sleep. Analogies such as this go nowhere; stick to

facts, not intimations and analogous situations.

>

> It’s not really simple, there are confounding factors, but yes,

> generally speaking, you don’t want to over-do it with defragging; at

> best it just wastes electricity and creates heat without providing

> much in return (unless you’re obsessive coumpulsive and need it nice

> and organized). If solid-state drives could be created with something

> more resiliant and faster than flash-RAM, then drives would become

> really amazing: very fast, cool, low-power, and reliable.

 

At best, defragging too much keeps defrag times short and there is

little to do each time defrag runs. Defragging a drive that has already

been properly defragged can literally take only a few seconds to

complete. I see it happen fairly often when I happen to defrag a drive

that hasn't become fragmented. So, even by your conjecture, there would

be little head movement beyond reading the tables to see what needs to

be fragmented.

If you're using a 3rd party defragger and it's taking a long time to

run, even on a properly already defragged drive, then I would suggest

you look into a better tool. Unfragmented data should NOT be moved;

ever, by a decent defrag program.

The ONLY drive that becomes fragmented during non-use of that drive

is the operating system drive. That's because it's reading and writing

almost constantly, usually to the registry but also in performing any of

the many background tasks that may be set to run while the machine is

idle. Other non-system drives will not fragment, so defragging one of

those only takes a couple tens or so of seconds, or should anyway.

There is nothing to do on an already defragged disk drive.

 

Once more, I'll say it: Do some research on the issues if this is

imortant to you. If it isn't, and you simply have a closed minded

objection to anyone having the audacity to call you wrong, well, you're

just showing your own ignorance and inability to refrain from giving

mis-information. Posting unverifiable mis-information is only slightly

better than being a 1. spammer and 2. a troll. But a person who will

check things out when they've ben advised their information might be

incorrect, well, is a thinking person interested in the accuracy of his

posts and the well being of those he advises.

 

Should I say it again? Do some research. I'm not providing URLs to

verifying this information for a couple of reasons: It's easy to find,

and I have a feeling even white papers would simply fly by you without

even a glance at them. You have more interest in being thought to be

right than you do in actually being accurate.

 

Unless you have something intelligent to say, I'll likely not be

responding further you in this thread. I've said what I need to say and

all I'd end up doing is repeating the same information again.

 

HTH

 

Twayne

--

 

Children are the future;

unless we stop them now.

- Homer Simpson

[Guest Alec S.]

Re: Fragmentation of large video file

 

Onsokumaru wrote (in

news:48ba2f02$0$7647$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au):

> "Alec S." <@> wrote in message news:uwxYmkxCJHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> >

> > Think about your body. Doing a lot of reading would wear your eyes, doing a

> > lot of typing/writing would wear your arms and fingers, doing a lot of

> > weightlifting would wear your joints and knees; and this is with organic

> > systems that can repair themselves!

> A very poor analogy - doing nothing will cause your body to atrophy, and

> performance will be extremely low - far lower than remaining active.

 

It’s not about doing nothing, it’s about overdoing something. You can sharpen a

knife once in a while, but if you do it too much, it will wear out much faster.

You can polish jewlery once in a while, but if you do it too much, you will wear

it out. Sharpening and polishing provide a benefit when done when needed, but if

you overdo them (eg when not needed), they will wear out the product without

providing anything of value. Better analogies?

 

> You don't, "wear out", your eyes by reading, you can damage them by abusing

> them, but not wear them out.

 

Fine, not “wear them out”, “break”. Happy? If you try to read lots and lots of

small print, forcing your eyes to exert themselves excessively, then they will

become exhausted and the muscles will stop functioning correctly until they can

heal (they can’t contract or relax the proper amounts). If you tax the moving

parts of a hard drive, they will break, they will fail, the oil will crap out,

the head will have more opportunites to gouge into the disk, etc.

 

> Do you, "not think", in order to save your brain?

 

Yes. :P

 

 

--

Alec S.

news/alec->synetech/cjb/net

[Guest Alec S.]

Re: Fragmentation of large video file

 

Twayne wrote (in news:uomdDQ5CJHA.1180@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl):

> > Twayne wrote (in news:uc5natvCJHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl):

> If head movement due to defrag were the only thing involved, and

> defrag was the only thing that made the heads move, your conjecture

> might have something to it. But that is not the real world.

 

??? If the sky were blue and blue were the color of the sky?

 

Anyway, defrag causes a lot of head movement; that’s its nature. Have you ever

watched one go? They move blocks of data from end of the drive to the other

repeatedly, many, many times. That’s a lot of head movement. The more the head

flys around, the more opportunites for disaster. (Of course that’s all the more

reason to defrag, but again moderation is the key.) I have yet to see a

defragger that can use another (physical) disk as temp storage instead of the

free space on the partition being defragged.

 

> Again I recommend you do more research if this is an important issue

> to you because it's negligible in the overall scheme of things. You are

> producing seemingly logical proposals which could only be true in a

> controlled, specific-activity session of the drives.

 

Specific activity? For example? Like I said, watch a defrag session.

 

> Using your logic, keeping a drive fully fragmented would result in

> almost no wear of the heads because they would never have far to move

> and fewer occasions to move.

 

??? Fragmentation only has any bearing when the files are being accessed. If one

file is being accessed, then the other files have no bearing on head movement.

If the drive were fully fragmented /and/ every file on the disk were being

accessed (eg copying all files to another disk or something), then it would be

similar to a defrag session.

 

> M stands for "Mean"; right. However, "Mean" does NOT mean "average".

 

Sorry, but I don’t have the educational backgrounds of everyone on the Internet.

If I knew that you had a degree in statistics, I would have been more specific.

And for the record, yes it does; a mean is one measure of “average”.

 

> Your eyes are "seeing" 24/7, even while you're asleep, and muscle

> movement is nearly constant.

 

Seeing and reading are not the same thing. When you read, your eye muscles

contort to a different configuration to accomodate the different focus. If you

do that too much, the muscles will exhaust. Maybe you can read thousands of

pages of tiny print or run for thousands of miles without problem, but most

people cannot; most of us have limits and if we repeatedly exceed them to the

point of injury, we run into problems, many of which have permanent effects.

 

> If you're using a 3rd party defragger and it's taking a long time to

> run, even on a properly already defragged drive, then I would suggest

> you look into a better tool. Unfragmented data should NOT be moved;

> ever, by a decent defrag program.

 

I remember in the days of DOS, defraggers would have the option to actually

reorganize the files according to directory structure (eg directory A would be

moved to the front followed by all of its subdirectores and files, then

directory B, and so on). Defraggers don’t seem to do that anymore, they only

make sure that files are in one piece (although most do try to push all files

towards the start of the disk in whatever order).

 

> Once more, I'll say it: Do some research on the issues if this is imortant to

you…

> Posting unverifiable mis-information is only slightly

> better than being a 1. spammer and 2. a troll.

 

You know, with all of your nagging, you never indicated whether you have any

education in the matter yourself. You never said that you are an engineer, or

anything; no credentials listed. All you do is say “wrong, wrong” without

correcting. That is only slightly better than being 1. a spammer and 2. a troll.

 

> But a person who will check things out when they've ben advised their

information

> might be incorrect, well, is a thinking person interested in the accuracy of

his

> posts and the well being of those he advises.

 

Okay, your information is incorrect, inaccurate, and downright wrong. Go look it

up and do some research.

 

> I'm not providing URLs…

 

See what I mean.

 

> Unless you have something intelligent to say, I'll likely not be

> responding further you in this thread. I've said what I need to say and

> all I'd end up doing is repeating the same information again.

 

Thank the Hevean—and Hell.

 

 

--

Alec S.

news/alec->synetech/cjb/net

[Guest Plato]

Re: Fragmentation of large video file

 

Stan Hilliard wrote:

>

> OS=Windows XP Pro SP2

> I downloaded a 1 hour video, file dn008.0318.mp4 from democracynow.com

> using the video player Miro.exe.

>

> The 451,294 KB, file had 6,264 fragments. When I use this process I

> typically get this degree of high fragmentation.

>

> Q1 - Is such high fragmentation to be expected with video files? Or

> does this indicate that I have a problem?

>

> Windows defrag couldn't defrag it (or several other video files.)

> Piniform defraggler showed 3 fragments after Defragging it.

 

Perhaps your hard drive is getting full. Before downloading large files

make sure you defragged in advance so the new file is written to the

disk without fragmented.

 

--

http://www.bootdisk.com/

[Guest Twayne]

Re: Fragmentation of large video file

 

....

>

>> Do you, "not think", in order to save your brain?

>

> Yes. :P

 

LOL! And there, we have it in a nutshell! It's called atrophy. Use it

or lose it.

[Guest Alec S.]

Re: Fragmentation of large video file

 

Twayne wrote (in news:OxC%23GQKDJHA.4588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl):

> > > Do you, "not think", in order to save your brain?

> >

> > Yes. :P

>

> LOL! And there, we have it in a nutshell! It's called atrophy. Use it

> or lose it.

 

Hmmm, iteresting that you clearly have no concept of humor yet use “LOL”.

Mimicking emotions that one cannot themselves feel is classic sociopathic

behavior.

 

--

Alec S.

news/alec->synetech/cjb/net