Can I turn off XP's background defrag?

[Barry Watzman]

Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the
background when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but
it actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap
file, that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

 

[R. McCarty]

You neglected to mention which version of SpeedDisk you are
using. SpeedDisk uses a placement algorithm that isn't fully in step
with XP's Prefetch/Layout.Ini schema.
If it works contrary to the built-in Defrag that ought to imply that
it isn't compliant with the latest XP internal Defrag API's.
SpeedDisk is a carry-over remnant from Norton Utilities that I
wouldn't use on my XP system. There are many other choices that
do a more comprehensive defrag. Symantec should have retired
this from their product line several years ago.

 

[Ronnie Vernon MVP]

Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the
background when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but
it actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap
file, that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

That application is interferring with the built in Prefetch optimization
which is designed to speed up the boot time and start up of programs in XP.
To investigate this further:

Reference:

See the Prefetch and Run Time Performance sections of the following
articles.

Windows XP: Kernel Improvements Create a More Robust, Powerful, and Scalable
OS -- MSDN Magazine, December 2001:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XPKernel/default.aspx

Microsoft Windows XP Performance:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx

 

[Vanguardx]

Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the
background when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but
it actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap
file, that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

N different defragmenters will implement N different ways to defragment.
That has been the case every since they've been around. You defrag with
the one built into the OS, with Diskeeper, PerfectDisk, SpeedDisk, or
with BrandX and they all defrag differently. The defrag included with
Windows XP is a crippled version of Diskeeper. Each defrag utility
thinks they know what is best. I haven't seen one whose basic defrag
wasn't good enough for typical end-user use. If you are running a huge
database with hundreds of concurrent connects from users or programs
from other hosts then you won't find a difference in performance. You
end up doing a defrag with one product and then use a different one that
wants to move stuff elsewhere but it is all contiguous, anyway.

What did you actually use to benchmark the difference in disk
performance after using SpeedDisk as opposed to using Windows XP's
defrag? If you want good defragmentation, dump the archaic SpeedDisk
and get Diskeeper or PerfectDisk. You certainly should NOT be running a
Windows 98 version of Speedisk under an NT-based version of Windows. If
you have any NTFS partitions, you also need to make sure to use a
version of Speedisk that understands NTFS v5 (included in SP-6 for
Windows NT4, Windows 2000, and Windows XP) but I don't remember what was
the minimum version level needed since I dumped Speedisk several years
ago. When you read comparisons of PerfectDisk and Diskeeper, they never
include Speedisk.

Speedisk isn't a contender anymore. Under Windows NT4 and 2000,
SpeedDisk does NOT use Microsoft's defrag APIs (and wrote directly to
disk) and is how it is able to get around the 4096K maximum size for
cluster restriction in the defrag APIs - and is also why Speedisk
sometimes caused data loss or corruption. I haven't bothered with
Speedisk for years so I don't know how it behaves under Windows XP. The
defrag API in Windows XP supports clusters sizes of 64K, or less. You
might want to read http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread21612-1.html
starting at the 8th post down.

 

[Barry Watzman]

I'm using the version from Systemworks 2003.

All of the "theoretical" stuff aside, Speedisk (run on the FAT32 D:
partition from Windows 98SE on the C: partition) produces a result that
it noticeably faster than the internal code (or even than speed disk
itself actually run under XP).

But none of that impacts the real question, can the internal background
defragging be turned off?

You neglected to mention which version of SpeedDisk you are
using. SpeedDisk uses a placement algorithm that isn't fully in step
with XP's Prefetch/Layout.Ini schema.
If it works contrary to the built-in Defrag that ought to imply that
it isn't compliant with the latest XP internal Defrag API's.
SpeedDisk is a carry-over remnant from Norton Utilities that I
wouldn't use on my XP system. There are many other choices that
do a more comprehensive defrag. Symantec should have retired
this from their product line several years ago.

Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the background
when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but it
actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap file,
that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

 

[Barry Watzman]

I'm not really interested in your view that what I want to do is unwise.
That's my decision, and it's a simple FACT that MY system, for
whatever reason, is significantly faster after using speedisk and slows
down -- significantly -- after the Windows XP "internal" defragmentation
does it's thing over the course of a few days. My question is, can the
internal background defragmentation be turned off? The answer to that
question does not depend on anyone's perceived wisdom of doing so.

Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the
background when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but
it actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap
file, that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

That application is interferring with the built in Prefetch optimization
which is designed to speed up the boot time and start up of programs in
XP. To investigate this further:

Reference:

See the Prefetch and Run Time Performance sections of the following
articles.

Windows XP: Kernel Improvements Create a More Robust, Powerful, and
Scalable OS -- MSDN Magazine, December 2001:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XPKernel/default.aspx

Microsoft Windows XP Performance:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx

 

[Barry Watzman]

Re: "What did you actually use to benchmark the difference in disk
performance after using SpeedDisk as opposed to using Windows XP's
defrag?"

I did not formal testing. The difference is great enough to be
subjectively obvious, and this can be confirmed, because the background
defragmentation "slows down" the system, whose speed can then be
restored with Speeddisk. Boot time is significantly impacted as well.

Keep in mind I'm using FAT32 partitions, not NTFS, which may be a factor.

Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the
background when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but
it actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap
file, that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

N different defragmenters will implement N different ways to defragment.
That has been the case every since they've been around. You defrag with
the one built into the OS, with Diskeeper, PerfectDisk, SpeedDisk, or
with BrandX and they all defrag differently. The defrag included with
Windows XP is a crippled version of Diskeeper. Each defrag utility
thinks they know what is best. I haven't seen one whose basic defrag
wasn't good enough for typical end-user use. If you are running a huge
database with hundreds of concurrent connects from users or programs
from other hosts then you won't find a difference in performance. You
end up doing a defrag with one product and then use a different one that
wants to move stuff elsewhere but it is all contiguous, anyway.

What did you actually use to benchmark the difference in disk
performance after using SpeedDisk as opposed to using Windows XP's
defrag? If you want good defragmentation, dump the archaic SpeedDisk
and get Diskeeper or PerfectDisk. You certainly should NOT be running a
Windows 98 version of Speedisk under an NT-based version of Windows. If
you have any NTFS partitions, you also need to make sure to use a
version of Speedisk that understands NTFS v5 (included in SP-6 for
Windows NT4, Windows 2000, and Windows XP) but I don't remember what was
the minimum version level needed since I dumped Speedisk several years
ago. When you read comparisons of PerfectDisk and Diskeeper, they never
include Speedisk.

Speedisk isn't a contender anymore. Under Windows NT4 and 2000,
SpeedDisk does NOT use Microsoft's defrag APIs (and wrote directly to
disk) and is how it is able to get around the 4096K maximum size for
cluster restriction in the defrag APIs - and is also why Speedisk
sometimes caused data loss or corruption. I haven't bothered with
Speedisk for years so I don't know how it behaves under Windows XP. The
defrag API in Windows XP supports clusters sizes of 64K, or less. You
might want to read http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread21612-1.html
starting at the 8th post down.

 

[R. McCarty]

Yes - You have to set the Registry key for Prefetch mode to disable
it, which in turns disables the auto-layout and background defrag.

I'm using the version from Systemworks 2003.

All of the "theoretical" stuff aside, Speedisk (run on the FAT32 D:
partition from Windows 98SE on the C: partition) produces a result that
it noticeably faster than the internal code (or even than speed disk
itself actually run under XP).

But none of that impacts the real question, can the internal background
defragging be turned off?

You neglected to mention which version of SpeedDisk you are
using. SpeedDisk uses a placement algorithm that isn't fully in step
with XP's Prefetch/Layout.Ini schema.
If it works contrary to the built-in Defrag that ought to imply that
it isn't compliant with the latest XP internal Defrag API's.
SpeedDisk is a carry-over remnant from Norton Utilities that I
wouldn't use on my XP system. There are many other choices that
do a more comprehensive defrag. Symantec should have retired
this from their product line several years ago.

Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the background
when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but it
actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap file,
that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

 

[SlowJet]

Maybe so, but if he used NTFS he wouldn't need to speed up the file system
because NTFS does NOT degrade over time like FAT32.
And the fatser FAT32 becomes the higher the risk of it geting clobbered
because of stress conditions that may NOT show up until such and such is
runing with so and so and the queues are backed up, and WHACK, there does
half a directory. ;P

SJ It's the Zeros, man.

I'm using the version from Systemworks 2003.

All of the "theoretical" stuff aside, Speedisk (run on the FAT32 D:
partition from Windows 98SE on the C: partition) produces a result that
it noticeably faster than the internal code (or even than speed disk
itself actually run under XP).

But none of that impacts the real question, can the internal background
defragging be turned off?

You neglected to mention which version of SpeedDisk you are
using. SpeedDisk uses a placement algorithm that isn't fully in step
with XP's Prefetch/Layout.Ini schema.
If it works contrary to the built-in Defrag that ought to imply that
it isn't compliant with the latest XP internal Defrag API's.
SpeedDisk is a carry-over remnant from Norton Utilities that I
wouldn't use on my XP system. There are many other choices that
do a more comprehensive defrag. Symantec should have retired
this from their product line several years ago.

Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the background
when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but it
actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap file,
that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

 

[Barry Watzman]

Sorry, I just don't buy any of what you just said. NTFS has some
advantages (and some disadvantages) over FAT32, but they both get
fragmented over time. And I've never found FAT32 to be unstable or
unreliable. But I have found it to be, when necessary, far more
repairable than NTFS.

Maybe so, but if he used NTFS he wouldn't need to speed up the file system
because NTFS does NOT degrade over time like FAT32.
And the fatser FAT32 becomes the higher the risk of it geting clobbered
because of stress conditions that may NOT show up until such and such is
runing with so and so and the queues are backed up, and WHACK, there does
half a directory. ;P

SJ It's the Zeros, man.

I'm using the version from Systemworks 2003.

All of the "theoretical" stuff aside, Speedisk (run on the FAT32 D:
partition from Windows 98SE on the C: partition) produces a result that
it noticeably faster than the internal code (or even than speed disk
itself actually run under XP).

But none of that impacts the real question, can the internal background
defragging be turned off?


R. McCarty wrote:

You neglected to mention which version of SpeedDisk you are
using. SpeedDisk uses a placement algorithm that isn't fully in step
with XP's Prefetch/Layout.Ini schema.
If it works contrary to the built-in Defrag that ought to imply that
it isn't compliant with the latest XP internal Defrag API's.
SpeedDisk is a carry-over remnant from Norton Utilities that I
wouldn't use on my XP system. There are many other choices that
do a more comprehensive defrag. Symantec should have retired
this from their product line several years ago.



Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the background
when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but it
actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap file,
that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

 

[Barry Watzman]

Ok, I give up, what's the registry setting to disable prefetch mode?

Yes - You have to set the Registry key for Prefetch mode to disable
it, which in turns disables the auto-layout and background defrag.

I'm using the version from Systemworks 2003.

All of the "theoretical" stuff aside, Speedisk (run on the FAT32 D:
partition from Windows 98SE on the C: partition) produces a result that
it noticeably faster than the internal code (or even than speed disk
itself actually run under XP).

But none of that impacts the real question, can the internal background
defragging be turned off?


R. McCarty wrote:

You neglected to mention which version of SpeedDisk you are
using. SpeedDisk uses a placement algorithm that isn't fully in step
with XP's Prefetch/Layout.Ini schema.
If it works contrary to the built-in Defrag that ought to imply that
it isn't compliant with the latest XP internal Defrag API's.
SpeedDisk is a carry-over remnant from Norton Utilities that I
wouldn't use on my XP system. There are many other choices that
do a more comprehensive defrag. Symantec should have retired
this from their product line several years ago.



Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the background
when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but it
actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap file,
that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

 

[David Candy]

Fat32 is fragmentation resistant. NTFS isn't. Caching makes fragmentation a minor issue anyway.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com

Sorry, I just don't buy any of what you just said. NTFS has some
advantages (and some disadvantages) over FAT32, but they both get
fragmented over time. And I've never found FAT32 to be unstable or
unreliable. But I have found it to be, when necessary, far more
repairable than NTFS.

Maybe so, but if he used NTFS he wouldn't need to speed up the file system
because NTFS does NOT degrade over time like FAT32.
And the fatser FAT32 becomes the higher the risk of it geting clobbered
because of stress conditions that may NOT show up until such and such is
runing with so and so and the queues are backed up, and WHACK, there does
half a directory. ;P

SJ It's the Zeros, man.

I'm using the version from Systemworks 2003.

All of the "theoretical" stuff aside, Speedisk (run on the FAT32 D:
partition from Windows 98SE on the C: partition) produces a result that
it noticeably faster than the internal code (or even than speed disk
itself actually run under XP).

But none of that impacts the real question, can the internal background
defragging be turned off?


R. McCarty wrote:


You neglected to mention which version of SpeedDisk you are
using. SpeedDisk uses a placement algorithm that isn't fully in step
with XP's Prefetch/Layout.Ini schema.
If it works contrary to the built-in Defrag that ought to imply that
it isn't compliant with the latest XP internal Defrag API's.
SpeedDisk is a carry-over remnant from Norton Utilities that I
wouldn't use on my XP system. There are many other choices that
do a more comprehensive defrag. Symantec should have retired
this from their product line several years ago.



Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the background
when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but it
actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap file,
that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

 

[R. McCarty]

Pardon the omission - Prefetch has 4 operational modes.
0=Disabled, 1=Apps Only, 2=Boot Only, 3=Boot & Apps

The Key heading is found at
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory

You need to modify the Key "EnablePrefetcher" to your
preferred mode from the listing above.

Ok, I give up, what's the registry setting to disable prefetch mode?

Yes - You have to set the Registry key for Prefetch mode to disable
it, which in turns disables the auto-layout and background defrag.

I'm using the version from Systemworks 2003.

All of the "theoretical" stuff aside, Speedisk (run on the FAT32 D:
partition from Windows 98SE on the C: partition) produces a result that
it noticeably faster than the internal code (or even than speed disk
itself actually run under XP).

But none of that impacts the real question, can the internal background
defragging be turned off?


R. McCarty wrote:


You neglected to mention which version of SpeedDisk you are
using. SpeedDisk uses a placement algorithm that isn't fully in step
with XP's Prefetch/Layout.Ini schema.
If it works contrary to the built-in Defrag that ought to imply that
it isn't compliant with the latest XP internal Defrag API's.
SpeedDisk is a carry-over remnant from Norton Utilities that I
wouldn't use on my XP system. There are many other choices that
do a more comprehensive defrag. Symantec should have retired
this from their product line several years ago.



Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the
background when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but
it actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap
file, that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

 

[R. McCarty]

Fragmentation affects all disk formats, Platters spin, heads pivot, users
add/remove & modify files. The rate & severity of fragmentation varies
based on content type, partition sizes, cluster sizes....
I could relate all the different OS's and PC's where I have personally
seen performance badly degraded by fragmentation, but perceptions are
hard to change. I first came into contact with Raxco and their products
years ago when a VAX cluster we managed needed Defragmentation
software.

If interested in the topic, read the following
http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdisk2k/whitepapers/defrag_tutorial.pdf

Fat32 is fragmentation resistant. NTFS isn't. Caching makes fragmentation a
minor issue anyway.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com

Sorry, I just don't buy any of what you just said. NTFS has some
advantages (and some disadvantages) over FAT32, but they both get
fragmented over time. And I've never found FAT32 to be unstable or
unreliable. But I have found it to be, when necessary, far more
repairable than NTFS.

Maybe so, but if he used NTFS he wouldn't need to speed up the file
system
because NTFS does NOT degrade over time like FAT32.
And the fatser FAT32 becomes the higher the risk of it geting clobbered
because of stress conditions that may NOT show up until such and such is
runing with so and so and the queues are backed up, and WHACK, there does
half a directory. ;P

SJ It's the Zeros, man.

I'm using the version from Systemworks 2003.

All of the "theoretical" stuff aside, Speedisk (run on the FAT32 D:
partition from Windows 98SE on the C: partition) produces a result that
it noticeably faster than the internal code (or even than speed disk
itself actually run under XP).

But none of that impacts the real question, can the internal background
defragging be turned off?


R. McCarty wrote:


You neglected to mention which version of SpeedDisk you are
using. SpeedDisk uses a placement algorithm that isn't fully in step
with XP's Prefetch/Layout.Ini schema.
If it works contrary to the built-in Defrag that ought to imply that
it isn't compliant with the latest XP internal Defrag API's.
SpeedDisk is a carry-over remnant from Norton Utilities that I
wouldn't use on my XP system. There are many other choices that
do a more comprehensive defrag. Symantec should have retired
this from their product line several years ago.



Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the
background
when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but
it
actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap
file,
that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

 

[David Candy]

Fat32 looks for 500K of contigious space before writing.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com

Fragmentation affects all disk formats, Platters spin, heads pivot, users
add/remove & modify files. The rate & severity of fragmentation varies
based on content type, partition sizes, cluster sizes....
I could relate all the different OS's and PC's where I have personally
seen performance badly degraded by fragmentation, but perceptions are
hard to change. I first came into contact with Raxco and their products
years ago when a VAX cluster we managed needed Defragmentation
software.

If interested in the topic, read the following
http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdisk2k/whitepapers/defrag_tutorial.pdf

Fat32 is fragmentation resistant. NTFS isn't. Caching makes fragmentation a
minor issue anyway.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com

Sorry, I just don't buy any of what you just said. NTFS has some
advantages (and some disadvantages) over FAT32, but they both get
fragmented over time. And I've never found FAT32 to be unstable or
unreliable. But I have found it to be, when necessary, far more
repairable than NTFS.

Maybe so, but if he used NTFS he wouldn't need to speed up the file
system
because NTFS does NOT degrade over time like FAT32.
And the fatser FAT32 becomes the higher the risk of it geting clobbered
because of stress conditions that may NOT show up until such and such is
runing with so and so and the queues are backed up, and WHACK, there does
half a directory. ;P

SJ It's the Zeros, man.

I'm using the version from Systemworks 2003.

All of the "theoretical" stuff aside, Speedisk (run on the FAT32 D:
partition from Windows 98SE on the C: partition) produces a result that
it noticeably faster than the internal code (or even than speed disk
itself actually run under XP).

But none of that impacts the real question, can the internal background
defragging be turned off?


R. McCarty wrote:


You neglected to mention which version of SpeedDisk you are
using. SpeedDisk uses a placement algorithm that isn't fully in step
with XP's Prefetch/Layout.Ini schema.
If it works contrary to the built-in Defrag that ought to imply that
it isn't compliant with the latest XP internal Defrag API's.
SpeedDisk is a carry-over remnant from Norton Utilities that I
wouldn't use on my XP system. There are many other choices that
do a more comprehensive defrag. Symantec should have retired
this from their product line several years ago.



Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the
background
when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but
it
actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap
file,
that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

 

[SlowJet]

I wasn't selling.

You do not repair FAT32 sturctures. The chkdsk program removes conditions to
restore the integrity of the file structure, just like any other f/s
including NTFS.

The removed pointers, links, clusters have to be recovered or recreated,
period.

Fragmentation is not as relavent today on a fast disk that is only 2.5" wide
with a geometry that is completely logical. The amount of time difference
would hardly be noticed on personal PC after an inital defragmentation.
Post SP2 install is worst I have ever seen on a disk. To get a disk into
that shape would require years of neglect.

FAT32 searches for files through a directory. If the directory becomes
fragmeted or as more and more files are added the performace slows down. On
older slower computers it wold be noticable but probalbly not on a fast disk
with a fast CPU.

NTFS never does more than 3 to 5 logical i/o's to find a file. It stores
small files in the MFT right next to the file definitions. FAT32 could do
hundreds.

The point is that on a fast disk and a fast CPU,
all things being equal,
NTFS has many more advanctages over FAT32,
and speed is a minor issue.

You can always isolate the FAT32 on a seperate partition as needed but the
SYTEM / BOOT partiton for Windows XP should be and always has been the
native f/s for any NT based Microsoft products.

The speed isue only holds up under a narrow set of circumstances.

But have FAT FUN while while it lasts.

You're going to love 64 bit FS. It's invisable.

SJ

Sorry, I just don't buy any of what you just said. NTFS has some
advantages (and some disadvantages) over FAT32, but they both get
fragmented over time. And I've never found FAT32 to be unstable or
unreliable. But I have found it to be, when necessary, far more
repairable than NTFS.

Maybe so, but if he used NTFS he wouldn't need to speed up the file
system because NTFS does NOT degrade over time like FAT32.
And the fatser FAT32 becomes the higher the risk of it geting clobbered
because of stress conditions that may NOT show up until such and such is
runing with so and so and the queues are backed up, and WHACK, there does
half a directory. ;P

SJ It's the Zeros, man.

I'm using the version from Systemworks 2003.

All of the "theoretical" stuff aside, Speedisk (run on the FAT32 D:
partition from Windows 98SE on the C: partition) produces a result that
it noticeably faster than the internal code (or even than speed disk
itself actually run under XP).

But none of that impacts the real question, can the internal background
defragging be turned off?


R. McCarty wrote:


You neglected to mention which version of SpeedDisk you are
using. SpeedDisk uses a placement algorithm that isn't fully in step
with XP's Prefetch/Layout.Ini schema.
If it works contrary to the built-in Defrag that ought to imply that
it isn't compliant with the latest XP internal Defrag API's.
SpeedDisk is a carry-over remnant from Norton Utilities that I
wouldn't use on my XP system. There are many other choices that
do a more comprehensive defrag. Symantec should have retired
this from their product line several years ago.



Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the
background when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but
it actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap
file, that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

 

[Barry Watzman]

Thanks

Pardon the omission - Prefetch has 4 operational modes.
0=Disabled, 1=Apps Only, 2=Boot Only, 3=Boot & Apps

The Key heading is found at
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory

You need to modify the Key "EnablePrefetcher" to your
preferred mode from the listing above.

Ok, I give up, what's the registry setting to disable prefetch mode?


R. McCarty wrote:

Yes - You have to set the Registry key for Prefetch mode to disable
it, which in turns disables the auto-layout and background defrag.



I'm using the version from Systemworks 2003.

All of the "theoretical" stuff aside, Speedisk (run on the FAT32 D:
partition from Windows 98SE on the C: partition) produces a result that
it noticeably faster than the internal code (or even than speed disk
itself actually run under XP).

But none of that impacts the real question, can the internal background
defragging be turned off?


R. McCarty wrote:



You neglected to mention which version of SpeedDisk you are
using. SpeedDisk uses a placement algorithm that isn't fully in step
with XP's Prefetch/Layout.Ini schema.
If it works contrary to the built-in Defrag that ought to imply that
it isn't compliant with the latest XP internal Defrag API's.
SpeedDisk is a carry-over remnant from Norton Utilities that I
wouldn't use on my XP system. There are many other choices that
do a more comprehensive defrag. Symantec should have retired
this from their product line several years ago.




Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the
background when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but
it actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap
file, that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

 

[Barry Watzman]

Re: "You do not repair FAT32 sturctures. The chkdsk program ....."

Sometimes you do. Other programs (Norton, Spinwrite, etc.) do FAR more
than Chkdsk. And, on extreme occasion, I've booted in dos and gone at
the directory and FAT table manually with a pure hex disk editor.

Re: "Fragmentation is not as relavent today on a fast disk that is only
2.5" wide with a geometry that is completely logical ..."

That's pure BS. At a physical level, to paraphrase a common saying,
"Fragmentation Happens".

I don't know what world you are living in, but it's not the real world.

I wasn't selling.

You do not repair FAT32 sturctures. The chkdsk program removes conditions to
restore the integrity of the file structure, just like any other f/s
including NTFS.

The removed pointers, links, clusters have to be recovered or recreated,
period.

Fragmentation is not as relavent today on a fast disk that is only 2.5" wide
with a geometry that is completely logical. The amount of time difference
would hardly be noticed on personal PC after an inital defragmentation.
Post SP2 install is worst I have ever seen on a disk. To get a disk into
that shape would require years of neglect.

FAT32 searches for files through a directory. If the directory becomes
fragmeted or as more and more files are added the performace slows down. On
older slower computers it wold be noticable but probalbly not on a fast disk
with a fast CPU.

NTFS never does more than 3 to 5 logical i/o's to find a file. It stores
small files in the MFT right next to the file definitions. FAT32 could do
hundreds.

The point is that on a fast disk and a fast CPU,
all things being equal,
NTFS has many more advanctages over FAT32,
and speed is a minor issue.

You can always isolate the FAT32 on a seperate partition as needed but the
SYTEM / BOOT partiton for Windows XP should be and always has been the
native f/s for any NT based Microsoft products.

The speed isue only holds up under a narrow set of circumstances.

But have FAT FUN while while it lasts.

You're going to love 64 bit FS. It's invisable.

SJ

Sorry, I just don't buy any of what you just said. NTFS has some
advantages (and some disadvantages) over FAT32, but they both get
fragmented over time. And I've never found FAT32 to be unstable or
unreliable. But I have found it to be, when necessary, far more
repairable than NTFS.


SlowJet wrote:

Maybe so, but if he used NTFS he wouldn't need to speed up the file
system because NTFS does NOT degrade over time like FAT32.
And the fatser FAT32 becomes the higher the risk of it geting clobbered
because of stress conditions that may NOT show up until such and such is
runing with so and so and the queues are backed up, and WHACK, there does
half a directory. ;P

SJ It's the Zeros, man.


I'm using the version from Systemworks 2003.

All of the "theoretical" stuff aside, Speedisk (run on the FAT32 D:
partition from Windows 98SE on the C: partition) produces a result that
it noticeably faster than the internal code (or even than speed disk
itself actually run under XP).

But none of that impacts the real question, can the internal background
defragging be turned off?


R. McCarty wrote:



You neglected to mention which version of SpeedDisk you are
using. SpeedDisk uses a placement algorithm that isn't fully in step
with XP's Prefetch/Layout.Ini schema.
If it works contrary to the built-in Defrag that ought to imply that
it isn't compliant with the latest XP internal Defrag API's.
SpeedDisk is a carry-over remnant from Norton Utilities that I
wouldn't use on my XP system. There are many other choices that
do a more comprehensive defrag. Symantec should have retired
this from their product line several years ago.




Apparently, XP does "defragmentation" of the hard drive in the
background when the system is idle.

Is there a way to turn this off?

What I'm finding is that it's not only far inferior to explicit defrag
with Norton Speedisk (done on my FAT32 partition from Windows 98), but
it actually "undoes" Speedisk's "work" and degrades the overall system
performance.

[Speedisk run from Win98 has capabilities, like defragging the swap
file, that don't exist when it's run from within XP itself]

 

[Vanguardx]

Re: "What did you actually use to benchmark the difference in disk
performance after using SpeedDisk as opposed to using Windows XP's
defrag?"

I did not formal testing. The difference is great enough to be
subjectively obvious, and this can be confirmed, because the
background defragmentation "slows down" the system, whose speed can
then be restored with Speeddisk. Boot time is significantly impacted
as well.
Keep in mind I'm using FAT32 partitions, not NTFS, which may be a
factor.

Hmm, "background" defragmentation? I'm wondering if the disk activity
you are hearing is the file indexing NT service. When it is running,
your computer may perform or respond more slowly. I find it of little
practical value. Run the service.msc applet and disable the "Indexing
Service", or set it to manual mode.

If the OS is trying to undo the "defragmentation" that Speedisk laid
down then (and which ignored layout.ini) then, yes, there will be
activity in trying to realign the files to perform a partial defrag on
the drive(s) again for the files listed in layout.ini which is down
about every 3 days but which should only cause disk activity when the
system is idle (see
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=Ou0wHkCoBHA.2440@tkmsftngp05).
If you want to disable Prefectch, read
http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-6270_11-5165773.html?tag=e064. Some
folks recommended cleaning out the Prefetch folder about once a month
because old and obsolete entries will cause alignment of files that are
rarely used after their first-time use (see
http://www.tweakxp.com/tweak525.aspx). Yet, for me, the oldest modified
datestamp for any file under C:\Windows\Prefetch is just a couple days
ago.

Right now, no one but you knows what type of files are on your FAT32
partition. If only data files then it would matter little which
defragmenter is used as all of them will make contiguous all the sectors
for the files. If you installed programs over there, then you are
battling the file alignment against Speedisk's layout. If you have a
pagefile over there, make sure max and min size are the same in the
virtual memory configuration for the pagefile put in that partition (and
elsewhere, too) to eliminate or reduce its fragmentation, and boot into
Recovery Console mode to delete that pagefile.sys (and all others) so it
gets recreated on the next reboot; see
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=255205. The crippled defrag (Diskeeper
Lite) included with Windows does not defragment the pagefile. What, you
expected to get full functionality from non-operating system fluff
utilities included in Windows for marketing appeal? Speedisk will
supposedly defragment the pagefile but it does this while Windows is
still running and trying to use it, but maybe a newer version of
Speedisk has been coded to use the Windows defrag APIs instead of their
Speedisk driver which writes directly to disk. I doubt Symantec is
wasting time fixing their utilities since they want to become a
securities-oriented company and reduce their role as a "software
publisher" (since they never produce anything but always buy the
software, tweak it for awhile to maintain revenue, but their usurped
products still wane over time). I believe the other commercial
defragmenters require a reboot to defrag the pagefile since doing it
while the OS is trying to use it doesn't make sense regarding stability
(i.e., it seems a hazardous operation).

What happens when you run the defrag tool to perform an on-demand
defragment of your drives instead of waiting for the OS to eventuall do
the same in the background? Fact is, I don't know what you mean by
"background defragmentation" since Windows 2000/XP doesn't do that. It
does some file realignment but it definitely doesn't do a full defrag in
the background. If you have a highly fragmented FAT32 partition then
leaving Windows XP running all the time is NOT going to get that
partition magically defragmented over time. You'll have to still run
the defrag tool in the OS or a 3rd party defrag to actually do a defrag.
Unless you scheduled an event in Task Scheduler to run defrag.exe, maybe
on Windows startup, the disk activity you hear when Windows XP is loaded
is NOT some background automatic defragmenting going on. If defragging
were automatic, no one would ever have to be reminded to run it
occasionally.

You never mentioned how much system memory you have. Have a read at
http://www.tweakxp.com/tweak1796.aspx.

 

[Alex Nichol]

I'm not really interested in your view that what I want to do is unwise.
That's my decision, and it's a simple FACT that MY system, for
whatever reason, is significantly faster after using speedisk and slows
down -- significantly -- after the Windows XP "internal" defragmentation
does it's thing over the course of a few days.

The important point is that you have two defrag programs fighting. It
is always going to be bad to allow this. One only.

But you appear to regard the way Norton does it as being just great, and
the way Windows does as bad. Norton has not kept up in this, and the
layout it aims for gives worse performance (on its own) than the Windows
Prefetch optimisation does (on *its* own). I would stop using Norton,
and use one of the third party defrag tools that uses the Windows
information to get a properly optimised layout. The one I suggest (and
use) is Perfect Disk - www.raxco.com