Guest PD43 Posted May 19, 2008 Posted May 19, 2008 Re: Disk Defrag "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote: >> Twayne > >I am Twayne: I did not write what's below. It is misquoted by someone >apparently ignorant of such things. > >Since the dummy trying to pose as me knows so much, I wonder why he >didn't post a solution? BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That "dummy" wasn't attributing what you quote to YOU... it was Gerry ADDRESSING what you quoted TO you. You are the apparent "ignorant" one here.
Guest Nospam.9653740@yahoo.co.uk Posted May 19, 2008 Posted May 19, 2008 Re: Disk Defrag On 17 May, 19:40, rick s <ri...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of > destroying your hard drive. Is this true? The more fragmented a drive is, the more new or changed files will be written fragmented, so fragmentation breeds fragmentation. Defragging all of the seldom-accessed files only has to be done once, then they are not going to cause further fragmentation and are not going to inflate the % files fragmented in the report, and do not themselves require defragging again. Let the defrag utility decide when to defrag -- when fragmentation is low it won't defrag and so will cause no wear on the drive, when it is needed it will do it's stuff but only on the fragmented files, and thus reduce unnecessary wear on the drive. Neglected fragmentation is probably the main cause of computers getting slower and slower until intolerable.
Guest Gerry Posted May 19, 2008 Posted May 19, 2008 Re: Disk Defrag Twayne or Whoever Twayne wrote: >> Twayne > > I am Twayne: I did not write what's below. It is misquoted by > someone apparently ignorant of such things. That's irrelevant so far as I am concened. > > Since the dummy trying to pose as me knows so much, I wonder why he > didn't post a solution? 3rd party apps are the easiest, but it CAN be > done without them by basically turning off/moving the PF, starting in > Safe Mode, and defrag the hard drive, then turn the page file back on > and set it up. Once the files are defragged and contiguous, then the > PF will have to be the same and will be the same; contiguous. Not necessarily true. It depends on the way the pagefile is managed. If managed by Windows it will not stay contiguous. A fixed ie. minimum=maximum pagefile will be immovable and if contiguous it will stay contiguous, unless or until you change the pagefile setting. > Caveat: If you're not familiar with how to do this effectively and > moving the swap file around, don't do it; you'll have less than > satisfactory results. I presently have a contiguous pagefile created without using a third party utility. >Better to use a trusted 3rd party app. If you have money to burn. > > HTH > > Twayne, the real one. > >> >> That's why you should ignore "MS's defrag will tell you it's not >> needed." > > Untrue: MS's defrag will indeed tell you a defrag is needed, when it > is needed and is causing too many waits during accesses. > My statement was true just as your one is; because we are referring to opposite sides of the same coin. > You should select View Report and look at the real situation. > > Yes, assuming you're talking about Defrag's report. BUT, you will > still need to be experienced enough to know whether the fragmented > files are a problem yet or not. It really does not matter if you run Disk Defragmenter more often than might be absolutely necessary. Besides it's running Disk CleanUp or the like before running Disk Deframenter, which when carried out together, combine to bring benefits.. > > Depding on what I'm doing, I defrag monthly. But, if I'm doing > something that creates zillions of temporary files such as design > work, or especially video editing and rendering, I do so more often. > Video work in fact requires a defrag every day, sometimes more often, > depending on what's going on with any particular drive. Those are > good reasons to keep a separate working partition for design/video > etc. types of work; they defrag faster and don't mess with the boot > drive much. I would agree with this line of thought. Benefits can accrue if you remove files that fragment rapidly from the windows partition. >It's a matter of learning your machine and experience, > mostly. >> However, it's not just a matter of frequently accessed files. You >> will normally not need to access System Restore restore points but >> if left fragmented their size, will on a disk with limited free disk >> space, cause fragmentation of other files, which are in active use. > > Existing Restore Points will have zero impact on fragmentation. Incorrect. > Fragmentation only happens when data is written TO the drive. True. > The > total space used for restore points, although excessive IMO, is > limited and they do not grow uncontrollably. Restore points can be of some size. They are created automatically daily and if you install Windows Update. Their impact on fragmentation will be more significant when there is limited free disk space. >> >> It's questionable whether you want any Norton product on your >> computer. Perfect Disk is I suspect more highly rated but there is >> really no need to pay for a third party defragmenter. > > It's none of your business to comment on what anyone else had decided > to use on their computers. Irrelevant. >I'm sure I could say the same about some > of the apps you use too, but even if the opportunity arose and you > asked for assistance, I wouldn't tell you to trash it unless it was > actually rogue or malicious somehow. I did not suggest trashing Diskeeper. > Norton, BTW, has an excellent ability to open up the area where a PF > wants to live, and makes it easy to create a continguous PF. Norton's > defrag app is also far form the only feature provided by their > software package; in fact, it's a small part of it. Symantec's > Norton Ghost is pretty decent as is their firewall app. But you > don't know that because you allowed Norton to slow down your computer > by bad setups and probably have no idea what it's capable of. A lot of users have dumped Norton when they realised the way it adversely impacts on system performance. >That's > fine with me. The only app I'm using right now is Ghost, but it's a > great app with True Image running a very close second. But you won't > know that either because of your parrot/misattribution mentality. > > Learn to quote properly. Flame away; I won't be wasting ether on you > for awhile to come. I am only interested in correcting what I see as incorect statements made in the last post. I am not interested in trading personal abuse. -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Guest RJK Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 Re: Disk Defrag I've spent more time than I care to remember - fighting with pagefile.sys's. Specifically getting, and keeping, the damned things contigous, (offline defrags' etc), and trying to keep them that way, ...i.e. tinkering with "fixed size" pagefile.sys's. I think it was on aumha.org where one described strategy was to set a fixed 60mb swap-file on the XP boot drive, (because XP does not like there to be no swap-file at all on its' boot-drive), and the larger, (1.5 x's the amount of memory in the box / XP default size), (2nd) main swapfile on the 1st drive on 2nd hard disk. Across the years, I've found this strategy does "smooth" things out a little, and under some conditions there is a small but noticeable performance benefit e.g. XP can be skittering around doing what it want's with its' swap-file on 2nd hd, whilst the boot-drive is simultaneosly doing other things - .... - depending of course on what you're doing on your PC ! regards, Richard "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message news:OpyVNDguIHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Twayne or Whoever > > Twayne wrote: >>> Twayne >> >> I am Twayne: I did not write what's below. It is misquoted by >> someone apparently ignorant of such things. > > That's irrelevant so far as I am concened. > >> >> Since the dummy trying to pose as me knows so much, I wonder why he >> didn't post a solution? 3rd party apps are the easiest, but it CAN be >> done without them by basically turning off/moving the PF, starting in >> Safe Mode, and defrag the hard drive, then turn the page file back on >> and set it up. Once the files are defragged and contiguous, then the >> PF will have to be the same and will be the same; contiguous. > > Not necessarily true. It depends on the way the pagefile is managed. If > managed by Windows it will not stay contiguous. A fixed ie. > minimum=maximum pagefile will be immovable and if contiguous it will stay > contiguous, unless or until you change the pagefile setting. > > >> Caveat: If you're not familiar with how to do this effectively and >> moving the swap file around, don't do it; you'll have less than >> satisfactory results. > > I presently have a contiguous pagefile created without using a third party > utility. > >>Better to use a trusted 3rd party app. > > If you have money to burn. > >> >> HTH >> >> Twayne, the real one. >> >>> >>> That's why you should ignore "MS's defrag will tell you it's not >>> needed." >> >> Untrue: MS's defrag will indeed tell you a defrag is needed, when it >> is needed and is causing too many waits during accesses. >> > > My statement was true just as your one is; because we are referring to > opposite sides of the same coin. > > >> You should select View Report and look at the real situation. >> >> Yes, assuming you're talking about Defrag's report. BUT, you will >> still need to be experienced enough to know whether the fragmented >> files are a problem yet or not. > > It really does not matter if you run Disk Defragmenter more often than > might be absolutely necessary. Besides it's running Disk CleanUp or the > like before running Disk Deframenter, which when carried out together, > combine to bring benefits.. > >> >> Depding on what I'm doing, I defrag monthly. But, if I'm doing >> something that creates zillions of temporary files such as design >> work, or especially video editing and rendering, I do so more often. >> Video work in fact requires a defrag every day, sometimes more often, >> depending on what's going on with any particular drive. Those are >> good reasons to keep a separate working partition for design/video >> etc. types of work; they defrag faster and don't mess with the boot >> drive much. > > I would agree with this line of thought. Benefits can accrue if you remove > files that fragment rapidly from the windows partition. > >>It's a matter of learning your machine and experience, >> mostly. >>> However, it's not just a matter of frequently accessed files. You >>> will normally not need to access System Restore restore points but >>> if left fragmented their size, will on a disk with limited free disk >>> space, cause fragmentation of other files, which are in active use. >> >> Existing Restore Points will have zero impact on fragmentation. > > Incorrect. > >> Fragmentation only happens when data is written TO the drive. > > True. > >> The >> total space used for restore points, although excessive IMO, is >> limited and they do not grow uncontrollably. > > Restore points can be of some size. They are created automatically daily > and if you install Windows Update. Their impact on fragmentation will be > more significant when there is limited free disk space. > >>> >>> It's questionable whether you want any Norton product on your >>> computer. Perfect Disk is I suspect more highly rated but there is >>> really no need to pay for a third party defragmenter. >> >> It's none of your business to comment on what anyone else had decided >> to use on their computers. > > Irrelevant. > >>I'm sure I could say the same about some >> of the apps you use too, but even if the opportunity arose and you >> asked for assistance, I wouldn't tell you to trash it unless it was >> actually rogue or malicious somehow. > > I did not suggest trashing Diskeeper. > >> Norton, BTW, has an excellent ability to open up the area where a PF >> wants to live, and makes it easy to create a continguous PF. Norton's >> defrag app is also far form the only feature provided by their >> software package; in fact, it's a small part of it. Symantec's >> Norton Ghost is pretty decent as is their firewall app. But you >> don't know that because you allowed Norton to slow down your computer >> by bad setups and probably have no idea what it's capable of. > > A lot of users have dumped Norton when they realised the way it adversely > impacts on system performance. > >>That's >> fine with me. The only app I'm using right now is Ghost, but it's a >> great app with True Image running a very close second. But you won't >> know that either because of your parrot/misattribution mentality. >> >> Learn to quote properly. Flame away; I won't be wasting ether on you >> for awhile to come. > > I am only interested in correcting what I see as incorect statements made > in the last post. I am not interested in trading personal abuse. > > > -- > > > > Hope this helps. > > Gerry > ~~~~ > FCA > Stourport, England > Enquire, plan and execute > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >
Recommended Posts