LurfysMa <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 06:59:24 +1100, "Pegasus \(MVP\)" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
> >
> >"LurfysMa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 20:14:32 +1100, "Pegasus \(MVP\)" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"LurfysMa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> >news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> >> A tech support guy told me that it's good to run the defrag utility
> >> >> multiple times. He said that each run will do a better job and the
> >> >> defrag will get faster and faster.
> >> >>
> >> >> I asked him if it really made that much difference and whether the
> >> >> increase from the second defrag wouldn't be lost almost immediately
> >> >> when I started using the system. He said no.
> >> >>
> >> >> I just ran a test. The first defrag took almost 2 hours. The second
> >> >> one, ran immediately after the first took almost an hour and, while
> >> >> there was a slight improvement in the map, is was very small.
> >> >>
> >> >> Can anyone confirm or contradict this advice? It seems wrong to me.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >
> >> >The test you ran means nothing. What you should really measure
> >> >is if defragging produces any noticeable benefits in performance,
> >> >not how long it takes to defrag. If you carefully design a test and
> >> >if you then measure performance with a stop watch then you will
> >> >find that defragging often produces no measurable benefit
> >> >whatsoever. It's a waste of time. Perhaps defragging once a
> >> >month might show some difference, depending on what you
> >> >do with your hard disk.
> >> >
> >> >In other words: Don't just defrag because it gives you a warm
> >> >feeling inside. Do some proper tests, then adopt a strategy that
> >> >is in line with your test results!
> >>
> >> So it sounds like you are agreeing with me. The second defrag is
> >> useless. Right?
> >>
> >> I typically defrag whenever the system seems sluggish. Usually about
> >> 2-3 months, but sometimes longer. I usually notice a big improvement
> >> right afterwards for awhilge.
> >>
> >> --
> >
> >Unless you make an effort and measure your PC's performance
> >with a stop watch, you will never know for sure.
> Well, I guess if you mean to the second, no. But why do I need that
> information? If the system performance is not noticably improved
> without timing it, who cares? It's not important to me that some
> standard task that took 47 seconds now takes 44. If it dropped to 20
> or even 30, I'd be able to tell without a timed test.
In my expereince, a second defrag typically makes little or no difference
in the number of fragmented files or in the total number of fragments, so
it cannot have any significant effect on performance. Whether the first
defrag makes a difference in performance will depend in part on how you
use your system, and you'll need to do some careful measuring to determine
the size of the effect. On my home system, defragging never appears to
make nay difference at all. My theory is that if you can't perceive the
difference, then there really isn't one.
--
Gary L. Smith
Columbus, Ohio
|
Similar Threads
