R
ray
Why? A properly designed file system in the 21st century should not need
constant defragmenting.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why? A properly designed file system in the 21st century should not need
constant defragmenting.
F
Frank
ray said:Why? A properly designed file system in the 21st century should not need
constant defragmenting.
If that's true then why do they make defragers for linux, huh?
LOL!
Frank
F
forty-nine
On the Bridge said:get lost twerp...
I had preordered Vista before it was officially released..
I am one of the first people that had vista you ignorant POS
but long before that I had beta tested it even before it was called vista
I am posting from XP because of choice.. not out of lack of vista..
sure ya did, cardboard cap'n.
D
DevilsPGD
Why? A properly designed file system in the 21st century should not need
constant defragmenting.
That only holds true if you have a reasonable amount of space free. Even
in NT4, NTFS holds up quite well against similar era competition.
However, once your drive gets to be filled, combined with applications
that continually append rather then declaring expected file-size
initially, you *will* get fragmentation on any filesystem.
The only way to avoid it is if the filesystem defragments in real time,
meaning that while you're writing data, the file system moves other
files out of the way before completing a write.
It would be possible to do a lot better then current file systems,
creating local partitions for temp files, log files, and splitting user
data from static data (including executables) wouldn't be a bad idea
either, but the complexity goes up substantially, and the law of
diminishing returns kicks in, especially when trying to generalize a
file system to meet all needs.
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> "cheen"
You've misunderstood how defragmentation works, the defragmenter can run
while the machine is actively being used, but anything the user does
will take priority.
The size of your data doesn't really matter either, although it
potentially increases the amount of time to move it into alignment.
its a low priority service.. if you actually work on your pc durring the day
as most people do.. lol
the computer will never be inactive for long enough for the defrag to kick
in and defrag the files especially if you are like me and have more than a
terrabyte of data shifting arround all the time...
gesh the people in here are thick
You've misunderstood how defragmentation works, the defragmenter can run
while the machine is actively being used, but anything the user does
will take priority.
The size of your data doesn't really matter either, although it
potentially increases the amount of time to move it into alignment.
O
On the Bridge
go learn a few things about the stupid OS you like so much before you come
in here blabering nonsesnse. I am not here to teach you about vista.. idiot.
in here blabering nonsesnse. I am not here to teach you about vista.. idiot.
R
ray
If that's true then why do they make defragers for linux, huh? LOL!
Frank
Can't say - I've never known anyone to use one on Linux.
O
On the Bridge
its simple.. all file systems get fraged.. but some do that faster than
others...
for example NTFS gets fraged in a month, linux gets fraged in a couple of
years...
By the way... the "readyboost" hype in Vista is far infirior to the ram
caching Linux does...
Have you seen this in action? If not you should because its INCREDIBLE!
In linux all the ram is REALLY used for cache.. and speeds up performance
incredibly..
Superfetch and its sidekick readyboost are a joke that offers very little...
People in here claim that Vista uses all the ram.. but this is a mistake!
If you notice how linux does it.. its so much better..
The way to see this better in Ubuntu is to add the system information thing
on the "taskbar",
then if you hover the mouse cursor it tells you how much of the ram is used
for cache.. its usually more than 90%... fantastic and smart...
others...
for example NTFS gets fraged in a month, linux gets fraged in a couple of
years...
By the way... the "readyboost" hype in Vista is far infirior to the ram
caching Linux does...
Have you seen this in action? If not you should because its INCREDIBLE!
In linux all the ram is REALLY used for cache.. and speeds up performance
incredibly..
Superfetch and its sidekick readyboost are a joke that offers very little...
People in here claim that Vista uses all the ram.. but this is a mistake!
If you notice how linux does it.. its so much better..
The way to see this better in Ubuntu is to add the system information thing
on the "taskbar",
then if you hover the mouse cursor it tells you how much of the ram is used
for cache.. its usually more than 90%... fantastic and smart...
O
On the Bridge
NTFS gets fraged a lot... there was some initual MS hype claiming that NTFS
doesnt get fraged..
this hype was soon deflated by people who know their stuff
The file systems linux use are the real deal.. they get fraged much less
than NTFS, they get fraged only when the drives are almost full.. while NTFS
gets fraged even it it has 80% empty space
You should do some reading on this because you seem to not know the facts
well
doesnt get fraged..
this hype was soon deflated by people who know their stuff
The file systems linux use are the real deal.. they get fraged much less
than NTFS, they get fraged only when the drives are almost full.. while NTFS
gets fraged even it it has 80% empty space
You should do some reading on this because you seem to not know the facts
well
R
Ralph
Wow- did you open a can-o-beans for the flamers!
You should read the Microsoft documentation.
You'll probably like it. I was at least impressed. (by the documentation)
It was defaulted to run weekly on my home machine, which I turned off.
Defragmentation is almost, I repeat, ALMOST, unnecessary with the size of
todays hard drives.
It does other things than the name suggests, and these are more useful. (or
at least, it did...)
It did run as a low-priority, background service, which is why it took me a
while to discover it.
I'm much happier with it off, but that's just me.
It works just fine, in my humble opinion.
I am not a fan of any company as large as Microsoft, but they've steadily
improved their services and products, unlike a lot of others.
I have to give them my grudging admiration, and can't fault them for a lot
of what they've done.
I would, however, like to see a possibility of some indication of progress.
There are other programs that have this fault as well.
Have fun with your new machine!
You should read the Microsoft documentation.
You'll probably like it. I was at least impressed. (by the documentation)
It was defaulted to run weekly on my home machine, which I turned off.
Defragmentation is almost, I repeat, ALMOST, unnecessary with the size of
todays hard drives.
It does other things than the name suggests, and these are more useful. (or
at least, it did...)
It did run as a low-priority, background service, which is why it took me a
while to discover it.
I'm much happier with it off, but that's just me.
It works just fine, in my humble opinion.
I am not a fan of any company as large as Microsoft, but they've steadily
improved their services and products, unlike a lot of others.
I have to give them my grudging admiration, and can't fault them for a lot
of what they've done.
I would, however, like to see a possibility of some indication of progress.
There are other programs that have this fault as well.
Have fun with your new machine!
C
cvp
Despite the availability of each of those "real deal" file systems as an
IFS on Windows, their usage tends towards zero. That would seem to
indicate that NTFS fragmentation is an uninteresting factoid to most
Windows users. What does it matter if a few cycles get used, at times
of little activity, to keep the file system performance-tuned?
IFS on Windows, their usage tends towards zero. That would seem to
indicate that NTFS fragmentation is an uninteresting factoid to most
Windows users. What does it matter if a few cycles get used, at times
of little activity, to keep the file system performance-tuned?
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> "On the Bridge"
I've done the reading, plus I have real life experience (mainly in the
Microsoft world, but I do have both BSD and Linux servers running as
well)
The problem when evaluating fragmention is that not all fragmentation is
bad, and just because every file is in a single fragment doesn't
guarantee optimum system performance.
Overall drive layout is far more important then minor fragmentation,
especially if the only files which are fragmented are large,
infrequently accessed (or infrequently read in a single piece -- VHDs,
for example, simply don't get read end to end, so a bit of fragmentation
isn't painful)
When considering optimum drive layout, you need to not only understand
the file system structure, but also the needs of the operating system
and applications in use.
NTFS gets fraged a lot... there was some initual MS hype claiming that NTFS
doesnt get fraged..
this hype was soon deflated by people who know their stuff
The file systems linux use are the real deal.. they get fraged much less
than NTFS, they get fraged only when the drives are almost full.. while NTFS
gets fraged even it it has 80% empty space
You should do some reading on this because you seem to not know the facts
well
I've done the reading, plus I have real life experience (mainly in the
Microsoft world, but I do have both BSD and Linux servers running as
well)
The problem when evaluating fragmention is that not all fragmentation is
bad, and just because every file is in a single fragment doesn't
guarantee optimum system performance.
Overall drive layout is far more important then minor fragmentation,
especially if the only files which are fragmented are large,
infrequently accessed (or infrequently read in a single piece -- VHDs,
for example, simply don't get read end to end, so a bit of fragmentation
isn't painful)
When considering optimum drive layout, you need to not only understand
the file system structure, but also the needs of the operating system
and applications in use.
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> "On the Bridge"
That depends on use. Create 20 files equal to one allocation unit
(cluster or whatever terminology your filesystem uses) then increment
each file by one unit repeatedly until the drive is full and every
single filesystem on the planet will be fragmented.
Some file systems may reserve larger-the-one-allocation-unit upfront,
which will reduce overall fragmentation in this scenario -- Unless, of
course, your disk was 90% full when this test started, and as part of
the test you are deleting a similar set from a previous test.
Not realistic? Well, the above is *exactly* what happens when you're
writing logfiles.
Correct. You're comparing apples to oranges, as Linux has nothing
similar to ReadyBoost.
In Vista, ReadyBoost augments the existing RAM caches, it doesn't
replace them. The intended use is machines with limited RAM, where
upgrading RAM isn't trivial (or even possible -- I've still got a couple
machines kicking around that can only address 256MB modules, and only
have three slots, so 768MB is the largest amount of RAM you can
physically install)
Superfetch isn't caching ether, Superfetch is about *pre-caching* -- In
short, Superfetch preloads data (mainly executable code) that it feels
is likely to be needed before being called.
Vista doesn't use all RAM, but nor does it flush pages from the cache
until they're needed for something else. This is actually very similar
to Linux.
When you boot up, anything already cached was touched during bootup, or
was loaded by Superfetch -- After that, it's based on actual user
activity.
Neither Linux nor Vista uses all available RAM in all cases. My VoIP
box, for example, currently has over 400MB of available RAM.
its simple.. all file systems get fraged.. but some do that faster than
others...
for example NTFS gets fraged in a month, linux gets fraged in a couple of
years...
That depends on use. Create 20 files equal to one allocation unit
(cluster or whatever terminology your filesystem uses) then increment
each file by one unit repeatedly until the drive is full and every
single filesystem on the planet will be fragmented.
Some file systems may reserve larger-the-one-allocation-unit upfront,
which will reduce overall fragmentation in this scenario -- Unless, of
course, your disk was 90% full when this test started, and as part of
the test you are deleting a similar set from a previous test.
Not realistic? Well, the above is *exactly* what happens when you're
writing logfiles.
By the way... the "readyboost" hype in Vista is far infirior to the ram
caching Linux does...
Correct. You're comparing apples to oranges, as Linux has nothing
similar to ReadyBoost.
In Vista, ReadyBoost augments the existing RAM caches, it doesn't
replace them. The intended use is machines with limited RAM, where
upgrading RAM isn't trivial (or even possible -- I've still got a couple
machines kicking around that can only address 256MB modules, and only
have three slots, so 768MB is the largest amount of RAM you can
physically install)
Have you seen this in action? If not you should because its INCREDIBLE!
In linux all the ram is REALLY used for cache.. and speeds up performance
incredibly..
Superfetch and its sidekick readyboost are a joke that offers very little...
Superfetch isn't caching ether, Superfetch is about *pre-caching* -- In
short, Superfetch preloads data (mainly executable code) that it feels
is likely to be needed before being called.
People in here claim that Vista uses all the ram.. but this is a mistake!
Vista doesn't use all RAM, but nor does it flush pages from the cache
until they're needed for something else. This is actually very similar
to Linux.
When you boot up, anything already cached was touched during bootup, or
was loaded by Superfetch -- After that, it's based on actual user
activity.
If you notice how linux does it.. its so much better..
Neither Linux nor Vista uses all available RAM in all cases. My VoIP
box, for example, currently has over 400MB of available RAM.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.