Guest Stephen Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 Defragmenting the hard disk is often recommended to improve performance. My hard disk has never been more than 25% used, so I wonder why any of the files have ever become fragmented in the first place. Isn't this just a difficiency of the operating system? Stephen
Guest Tony Meloche Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 Re: disk defragmenter Stephen wrote: > Defragmenting the hard disk is often recommended to improve performance. My > hard disk has never been more than 25% used, so I wonder why any of the > files have ever become fragmented in the first place. Isn't this just a > difficiency of the operating system? > > Stephen If your disk is only 10% used, the files will still, over time, become fragmented. It's "the nature of the beast", though in your situation, they might not get fragmented as quickly. Best bet is to have Windows Defrag analyze the disk once a month. If it says you're fine for now, you're fine for now. If it says Defrag, do it. Generally takes just a short time. Tony ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Guest Alias Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 Re: disk defragmenter Stephen wrote: > Defragmenting the hard disk is often recommended to improve performance. My > hard disk has never been more than 25% used, so I wonder why any of the > files have ever become fragmented in the first place. Isn't this just a > difficiency of the operating system? > > Stephen > > It's a deficiency that you need to live with if you want to continue using XP. The hard drive becomes defragmented due to use. How much of the hard drive is used is not relevant unless you have more than 85% and then it will be impossible to defrag it. -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest Bud W Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 Re: disk defragmenter "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message news:fedgg6$3bd$1@aioe.org... > Stephen wrote: >> Defragmenting the hard disk is often recommended to improve performance. >> My hard disk has never been more than 25% used, so I wonder why any of >> the files have ever become fragmented in the first place. Isn't this just >> a difficiency of the operating system? >> >> Stephen > > It's a deficiency that you need to live with if you want to continue using > XP. The hard drive becomes defragmented due to use. How much of the hard > drive is used is not relevant unless you have more than 85% and then it > will be impossible to defrag it. > > -- > Alias > To email me, remove shoes Alias: Are you implying that only XP results in fragmented files? Bud
Guest Alias Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 Re: disk defragmenter Bud W wrote: > "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message > news:fedgg6$3bd$1@aioe.org... >> Stephen wrote: >>> Defragmenting the hard disk is often recommended to improve performance. >>> My hard disk has never been more than 25% used, so I wonder why any of >>> the files have ever become fragmented in the first place. Isn't this just >>> a difficiency of the operating system? >>> >>> Stephen >> It's a deficiency that you need to live with if you want to continue using >> XP. The hard drive becomes defragmented due to use. How much of the hard >> drive is used is not relevant unless you have more than 85% and then it >> will be impossible to defrag it. >> >> -- >> Alias >> To email me, remove shoes > > Alias: Are you implying that only XP results in fragmented files? > > Bud > > Not at all. Where did you get that idea? All versions of Windows have this problem, not just XP. -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest Bud W Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 Re: disk defragmenter "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message news:fedl9b$ibo$1@aioe.org... > Bud W wrote: >> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >> news:fedgg6$3bd$1@aioe.org... >>> Stephen wrote: >>>> Defragmenting the hard disk is often recommended to improve >>>> performance. My hard disk has never been more than 25% used, so I >>>> wonder why any of the files have ever become fragmented in the first >>>> place. Isn't this just a difficiency of the operating system? >>>> >>>> Stephen >>> It's a deficiency that you need to live with if you want to continue >>> using XP. The hard drive becomes defragmented due to use. How much of >>> the hard drive is used is not relevant unless you have more than 85% and >>> then it will be impossible to defrag it. >>> >>> -- >>> Alias >>> To email me, remove shoes >> >> Alias: Are you implying that only XP results in fragmented files? >> >> Bud > > Not at all. Where did you get that idea? All versions of Windows have this > problem, not just XP. > > -- > Alias > To email me, remove shoes I got the idea from your comment about continuing to use XP.
Guest Alias Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 Re: disk defragmenter Bud W wrote: > "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message > news:fedl9b$ibo$1@aioe.org... >> Bud W wrote: >>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:fedgg6$3bd$1@aioe.org... >>>> Stephen wrote: >>>>> Defragmenting the hard disk is often recommended to improve >>>>> performance. My hard disk has never been more than 25% used, so I >>>>> wonder why any of the files have ever become fragmented in the first >>>>> place. Isn't this just a difficiency of the operating system? >>>>> >>>>> Stephen >>>> It's a deficiency that you need to live with if you want to continue >>>> using XP. The hard drive becomes defragmented due to use. How much of >>>> the hard drive is used is not relevant unless you have more than 85% and >>>> then it will be impossible to defrag it. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Alias >>>> To email me, remove shoes >>> Alias: Are you implying that only XP results in fragmented files? >>> >>> Bud >> Not at all. Where did you get that idea? All versions of Windows have this >> problem, not just XP. >> >> -- >> Alias >> To email me, remove shoes > > I got the idea from your comment about continuing to use XP. > > The only comment I made was that to continue using XP, one needs to run the defrag from time-to-time. How you got the idea that I said only XP has this problem is beyond me. As the OP is running XP, other Windows versions is not really relevant. -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
rapidaction Posted October 9, 2007 Posted October 9, 2007 Re: disk defragmenter Defragmenting the hard disk is often recommended to improve performance. My hard disk has never been more than 25% used, so I wonder why any of the files have ever become fragmented in the first place. Isn't this just a difficiency of the operating system? Stephen I thought the same and decided to forget about it for a long time until i analyzed one day and found the report saying that the drive was fragmented. Took me by surprise. The PC was running much slower and programs took longer to open. Two myths got cleared for me, Windows fragments all drives eventually, its just a matter of time before this problem attacks different drives. I guess it is inevitable. Second, a badly fragmented drive does affect performance, perhaps the degree of degradation may vary for each and those who are not used to a lightning fast system might not notice the difference but i think if your drives get full and fragmented, problems arising may be more than just sluggishness.
Guest Lil' Dave Posted October 9, 2007 Posted October 9, 2007 Re: disk defragmenter "Stephen" <none> wrote in message news:%23hmiakbCIHA.4444@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Defragmenting the hard disk is often recommended to improve performance. > My hard disk has never been more than 25% used, so I wonder why any of the > files have ever become fragmented in the first place. Isn't this just a > difficiency of the operating system? > > Stephen > Some windows system files and related files to the operating system are not stagnant. They change as you use the PC. This occurs by design. Changed open files saved back to the OS partition may not fit in the previous allocated space, or even may not be attempted to save in the previous allocated space. They end up dispersed in freespace. As a comparative analysis, if you have separate partition for saving stuff that doesn't change or have stuff added to it often, like personal file save location; observing the fragmentation on that partition will appear relatively stagnant. Dave
Guest Stephen Posted October 9, 2007 Posted October 9, 2007 Re: disk defragmenter "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message news:%23voKr9mCIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > "Stephen" <none> wrote in message > news:%23hmiakbCIHA.4444@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Defragmenting the hard disk is often recommended to improve performance. >> My hard disk has never been more than 25% used, so I wonder why any of >> the files have ever become fragmented in the first place. Isn't this just >> a difficiency of the operating system? >> >> Stephen >> > > Some windows system files and related files to the operating system are > not stagnant. They change as you use the PC. This occurs by design. > > Changed open files saved back to the OS partition may not fit in the > previous allocated space, or even may not be attempted to save in the > previous allocated space. They end up dispersed in freespace. > > As a comparative analysis, if you have separate partition for saving stuff > that doesn't change or have stuff added to it often, like personal file > save location; observing the fragmentation on that partition will appear > relatively stagnant. > Dave > Yes, I understand why a file may shift in position on the drive. My question is this: As there is always ample contiguous space for saving a file, why does it get fragmented in the first place?
Guest Tony Meloche Posted October 9, 2007 Posted October 9, 2007 Re: disk defragmenter Stephen wrote: > "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message > news:%23voKr9mCIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> "Stephen" <none> wrote in message >> news:%23hmiakbCIHA.4444@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> Defragmenting the hard disk is often recommended to improve performance. >>> My hard disk has never been more than 25% used, so I wonder why any of >>> the files have ever become fragmented in the first place. Isn't this just >>> a difficiency of the operating system? >>> >>> Stephen >>> >> Some windows system files and related files to the operating system are >> not stagnant. They change as you use the PC. This occurs by design. >> >> Changed open files saved back to the OS partition may not fit in the >> previous allocated space, or even may not be attempted to save in the >> previous allocated space. They end up dispersed in freespace. >> >> As a comparative analysis, if you have separate partition for saving stuff >> that doesn't change or have stuff added to it often, like personal file >> save location; observing the fragmentation on that partition will appear >> relatively stagnant. >> Dave >> > > Yes, I understand why a file may shift in position on the drive. My question > is this: As there is always ample contiguous space for saving a file, why > does it get fragmented in the first place? > An individual file may - or may not - get fragmented when the hard drive is "putting it away". The drive does whatever is most convenient. Frequently, that is right back where it was. Sometimes, it is not. But a *program* may consist of many, many files (.dll's, etc). The larger the program (the more files it has) the less likely the drive will put them all back right where they were. The drive can always find all the pieces of that program, but as they get scattered about (and multiply that by 100-125 programs on your computer) it takes the drive longer and longer to find them all. That's the slowdown that comes with fragmentation. The drive will always do what is most expedient for itself (so to speak). Over time, that invariably results in fragmentation. Tony ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Aevin Posted October 10, 2007 Posted October 10, 2007 Re: disk defragmenter From what I understand, in NTFS the free space preference algorithm is such that if it can, windows will fill up the pieces of free space in order on the disk from the beginning of the partition itself rather than go over to the great swathes of free space further down and plop the file there. Quite stupid, but that's what we have and what we need to live with. In it's defense, windows has no idea how much each file will grow (or shrink) in the future so it cannot preallocate space to it under normal circumstances and steal that space from other files which may need it in the future. This preallocation may not be an issue when the disk has a lot of free space left, but what when it begins to get filled up? Even the MFT fragments once it's outgrows it's preallocated zone, or disk space begins to get full and other files encroach into it's zone. Fragmentation is therefore a dynamic problem and needs a dynamic solution w.r.t disk volumes that see heavy I/O activity. That's why automatic defragmenters are becoming the preferred solution on the server (and even workstation) side of things in the enterprise segment; because unlike the older occasional scheduled/manual defrag processes, they are a continuous approach to tackling fragmentation. The icing on the cake is that auto defragmentation is also largely autonomous and the admin's workload is greatly reduced. As long as there is windows in the current form, we are stuck with fragmentation. Maybe we ought to ask MS to create a new non-fragmenting filesystem for Vienna (Yes please, and large fries with that order) :p
Guest Lil' Dave Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Re: disk defragmenter "Stephen" <none> wrote in message news:O964nhnCIHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message > news:%23voKr9mCIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> "Stephen" <none> wrote in message >> news:%23hmiakbCIHA.4444@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> Defragmenting the hard disk is often recommended to improve performance. >>> My hard disk has never been more than 25% used, so I wonder why any of >>> the files have ever become fragmented in the first place. Isn't this >>> just a difficiency of the operating system? >>> >>> Stephen >>> >> >> Some windows system files and related files to the operating system are >> not stagnant. They change as you use the PC. This occurs by design. >> >> Changed open files saved back to the OS partition may not fit in the >> previous allocated space, or even may not be attempted to save in the >> previous allocated space. They end up dispersed in freespace. >> >> As a comparative analysis, if you have separate partition for saving >> stuff that doesn't change or have stuff added to it often, like personal >> file save location; observing the fragmentation on that partition will >> appear relatively stagnant. >> Dave >> > > Yes, I understand why a file may shift in position on the drive. My > question is this: As there is always ample contiguous space for saving a > file, why does it get fragmented in the first place? > Because there is not a contingency in the operating system to write to freespace where such a file(s) would be unfragmented as a result. Dave
Guest Lil' Dave Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Re: disk defragmenter "Tony Meloche" <bombarde@i2k.com> wrote in message news:1191943062_3127@sp6iad.superfeed.net... > Stephen wrote: >> "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message >> news:%23voKr9mCIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> "Stephen" <none> wrote in message >>> news:%23hmiakbCIHA.4444@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>> Defragmenting the hard disk is often recommended to improve >>>> performance. My hard disk has never been more than 25% used, so I >>>> wonder why any of the files have ever become fragmented in the first >>>> place. Isn't this just a difficiency of the operating system? >>>> >>>> Stephen >>>> >>> Some windows system files and related files to the operating system are >>> not stagnant. They change as you use the PC. This occurs by design. >>> >>> Changed open files saved back to the OS partition may not fit in the >>> previous allocated space, or even may not be attempted to save in the >>> previous allocated space. They end up dispersed in freespace. >>> >>> As a comparative analysis, if you have separate partition for saving >>> stuff that doesn't change or have stuff added to it often, like personal >>> file save location; observing the fragmentation on that partition will >>> appear relatively stagnant. >>> Dave >>> >> >> Yes, I understand why a file may shift in position on the drive. My >> question is this: As there is always ample contiguous space for saving a >> file, why does it get fragmented in the first place? > > An individual file may - or may not - get fragmented when the hard drive > is "putting it away". The drive does whatever is most convenient. > Frequently, that is right back where it was. Sometimes, it is not. > > But a *program* may consist of many, many files (.dll's, etc). The larger > the program (the more files it has) the less likely the drive will put > them all back right where they were. The drive can always find all the > pieces of that program, but as they get scattered about (and multiply that > by 100-125 programs on your computer) it takes the drive longer and longer > to find them all. That's the slowdown that comes with fragmentation. > > The drive will always do what is most expedient for itself (so to speak). > Over time, that invariably results in fragmentation. > Know that's figuratively speaking regarding a "drive" doing anything on its own. Which it doesn't. Dave
Guest Lil' Dave Posted October 13, 2007 Posted October 13, 2007 Re: disk defragmenter "Aevin" <Aevin.2ybanu@news.home.local> wrote in message news:Aevin.2ybanu@news.home.local... > > From what I understand, in NTFS the free space preference algorithm is > such that if it can, windows will fill up the pieces of free space in > order on the disk from the beginning of the partition itself rather than > go over to the great swathes of free space further down and plop the > file there. Quite stupid, but that's what we have and what we need to > live with. > > In it's defense, windows has no idea how much each file will grow (or > shrink) in the future so it cannot preallocate space to it under normal > circumstances and steal that space from other files which may need it in > the future. This preallocation may not be an issue when the disk has a > lot of free space left, but what when it begins to get filled up? Even > the MFT fragments once it's outgrows it's preallocated zone, or disk > space begins to get full and other files encroach into it's zone. > > Fragmentation is therefore a dynamic problem and needs a dynamic > solution w.r.t disk volumes that see heavy I/O activity. That's why > automatic defragmenters are becoming the preferred solution on the > server (and even workstation) side of things in the enterprise segment; > because unlike the older occasional scheduled/manual defrag processes, > they are a continuous approach to tackling fragmentation. The icing on > the cake is that auto defragmentation is also largely autonomous and > the admin's workload is greatly reduced. > > As long as there is windows in the current form, we are stuck with > fragmentation. Maybe we ought to ask MS to create a new non-fragmenting > filesystem for Vienna (Yes please, and large fries with that order) :p > > > -- > Aevin > Posted via http://ms-os.com Forum to Usenet gateway > Have found Diskeeper to do that if setup correctly. I only allow that on the windows partition. Any remaining partitions don't seem to require it, or aren't worthwhile maintaining as such. Examples of the latter include partitions contianing image files (partition images), personal files like letters and pictures for archive purposes, software installation packages. They are all stagnant regarding fragmentation. Such as they are, except for image files which I never suggest defragmenting, the remainder are fine doing an intermittent manual defrag. Dave
Recommended Posts