Classic Defrag Style in XP?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theintrepidfox
  • Start date Start date
T

theintrepidfox

Dear Group

Just wondered whether there's some hidden tweak that will display
defrag on XP in the much more exciting Win9X style?

Thanks for your help & efforts!

Martin
 
Then why does defrag say, from time to time, "You should defragment this
volume?"
Or, in the Help fiile, "Defragmenting after installing software or
installing Windows
Defragment volumes after installing software or after performing an upgrade
or clean install of Windows. Volumes often become fragmented after installing
software, so running Disk Defragmenter helps to ensure the best file system
performance. "
 
In message <[email protected]> "Kelly"
Defrag isn't needed in XP.
Click to expand...

Umm... huh? What are you talking about?

Microsoft originally said defragmentation wasn't needed on NTFS, but
even Microsoft backed down after some real world experience.


--
Yeah man, I tell ya what, man. That dang ol'
Internet, man. You just go on there and point
and click. Talk about W-W-dot-W-com. An' lotsa
nekkid chicks on there, man. Click. Click. Click.
Click. Click. It's real easy, man.
-- Boomhauer, "King Of The Hill"
 
DevilsPGD said:
In message <[email protected]> "Kelly"


Umm... huh? What are you talking about?

Microsoft originally said defragmentation wasn't needed on NTFS, but
even Microsoft backed down after some real world experience.
Click to expand...

Would be nice of Kelly to tell us how Microsoft managed this neat trick,
since it was a necessity all the way up to XP...
 
Sad news indeed Kelly to hear of Alex's passing...
He was the consumate gentleman of these News Groups .
Vale Alex Nichols

rgds
Li'l Roberto
 
In message <[email protected]> "Morituri-|-Max"
Would be nice of Kelly to tell us how Microsoft managed this neat trick,
since it was a necessity all the way up to XP...
Click to expand...

Microsoft's position, prior to Windows 2000, was that since the
implementation of NTFS in NT (and up) will automatically write new files
to a location on the drive where they will not be fragmented.

This is different then FAT where data is typically written starting at
the place of the most recent write without regard to whether the file
will be fragmented and/or whether the file could be placed elsewhere
without fragmenting.

There are two problems with this approach:

1) When a file expands (either because the application didn't specify
the filesize when it was created, or because the application
subsequently appended a data file) fragmentation can still occur.

2) When a disk becomes fairly full (typically anywhere from 50%-80%
depending on the disk usage), free space becomes sufficiently fragmented
such that new files which are larger then a few clusters cannot possibly
be created without fragmenting.

All that being said, NTFS will still tend to fragment less then previous
filesystems. To some extent this is implementation rather then
filesystem design, but the result is the same.

One other consideration, people often confuse optimization with
defragmentation. Defragmentation is only one aspect of optimization.

There are a number of theories with regards to optimization, but one of
the most frequent strategies is to attempt to store all files in a
directory together, and where possible, including subdirectories in this
process.

This is typically effective, when you launch Word (for example), you
touch more then just winword.exe -- As Word is launched, Word needs to
read dozens of support files which will typically be located in the same
directory (or a subdirectory).

Another strategy, one which was more effective in the DOS days then
today, was to group executable files near the beginning of the disk and
data files near the end of the used disk space. This strategy tends to
reduce the performance impact of data files when fragmentation does
occur (since the fragments will be physically near other fragments), and
second, it means that when launching programs which don't need to access
data files, the drive heads will tend to stay near the beginning of the
drive. In a single tasking environment this strategy makes sense, but
not in a multitasking or multiuser environment.
 
Yes, you should defrag. I defrag whenever I get more than 100 fragmented
files and my computer runs like silk. There was a person who posted here a
week or so ago who hadn't defragged ever and his computer would freeze up
and, due to the high fragmentation, couldn't defrag. So, ignore those who
say you don't have to defrag with NTFS and XP. They're wrong.

Alias
 
Hugh said:
Everybody here knows more than I do, but a Google search n"Defrag
Tutorial"
finds article after article that says defrag is a necessity.
This, for example:
http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-6268-5027743.html#
Not trying to be argumentative, but curious why you say it isn't necessary
when MS and others say it definitely is.
Click to expand...


Hi Hugh:
Thought you, and perhaps others, might be interested in the following
article that appeared in the February, 2004 issue (p. 81) of PC World...

"Defraggers: No Longer Needed?

When was the last time you defragmented your hard disk. As your PC creates,
modifies, and deletes files on the hard drive, files tend to get broken up
into pieces that are physically scattered around the disk. Drives and file
systems are built to keep track of these noncontiguous file parts, but if a
significant portion of your hard drive has become fragmented, its
performance might suffer.

Then again, it might not. When the PC World Test Center set out to determine
the effectiveness of the defrag utilities in our set of suites, plus that of
Diskeeper 8 from Executive Software, our analysts found no evidence that
defragmentation enhanced performance. On a desktop system from the PC World
office with a heavily used, never-fragmented hard drive, the lab conducted
speed tests using a range of applications before and after defragmenting the
drive with each utility. In the end, the Test Center saw no significant
performance improvement after defragmenting with any program. This result
flies in the face of the perceived wisdom that fragmentation hinders
performance, though much older PCs (with slower and smaller hard drives) and
heavily used servers may benefit more from defragging.

Fortunately, you don't have to buy a defragger to see if it will boost
performance on your system: Every copy of Windows comes with a
defragmentation tool. However, it is not particularly easy to use. Diskeeper
8 Professional Edition offers set-it-and-forget-it scheduling options, the
ability to prioritize or skip defragmentation of specific files, and a
display that predicts how much faster your system will be after
defragmentation. Our tests didn't validate those predictions, though; again,
we saw no performance gains after defragmenting."

Anna
 
When the PC World Test Center set out to determine the effectiveness of
the defrag utilities in our set of suites, plus that of Diskeeper 8 from
Executive Software, our analysts found no evidence that defragmentation
enhanced performance. On a desktop system from the PC World office with
a heavily used, never-fragmented hard drive, the lab conducted speed
tests using a range of applications before and after defragmenting the
drive with each utility. In the end, the Test Center saw no significant
performance improvement after defragmenting with any program. This
result flies in the face of the perceived wisdom that fragmentation
hinders performance, though much older PCs (with slower and smaller hard
drives) and heavily used servers may benefit more from defragging.
Click to expand...

Which is why we don't read PC Mag, their testing methods don't often have
anything to do with real-world. Any serious IT Admin and any person
running servers or heavily used workstations will tell you that a full
defrag with consolidation of files will increase file access performance.
We all see it in the real world, we all see the benefits in access, and we
all appear to know more than PC Mag testing types.

I've seen a number of articles in PC Mag that were completely wrong, but
they never come back and correct them. It's just a simple matter of
physical access - if the head moves while not reading data on the drive
then you are wasting performance (as in when the head has to jump to the
next file fragment).

The one that comes with XP is not a good test, it doesn't pack the drive.
DK 8 or 9, if you do a boot time defrag/compact should let a slowed
machine recover performance it once had.
 
Leythos said:
Which is why we don't read PC Mag, their testing methods don't often have
anything to do with real-world. Any serious IT Admin and any person
running servers or heavily used workstations will tell you that a full
defrag with consolidation of files will increase file access performance.
We all see it in the real world, we all see the benefits in access, and we
all appear to know more than PC Mag testing types.

I've seen a number of articles in PC Mag that were completely wrong, but
they never come back and correct them. It's just a simple matter of
physical access - if the head moves while not reading data on the drive
then you are wasting performance (as in when the head has to jump to the
next file fragment).

The one that comes with XP is not a good test, it doesn't pack the drive.
DK 8 or 9, if you do a boot time defrag/compact should let a slowed
machine recover performance it once had.
Click to expand...

For 123 EUR, Diskeeper *better* be good. That's more expensive than XP Pro.

Alias
 
For 123 EUR, Diskeeper *better* be good. That's more expensive than XP Pro.
Click to expand...

I've got hundreds of systems that we've seen a improvement on after doing
a defrag, servers seem to benefit the most. It's interesting to see how an
exchange or sql server benefits - let me condition that with a while the
sql server doesn't really care, if the database file is fragmented it's
best to defragment it and it will help, but if it's set to auto-grow it
will fragment again - I try and size SQL database to the expected size and
then defrag the drive.

I run defrag on a schedule with a full consolidation every weekend in our
labs and it's been able to keep the systems in top performance for a long
time. DK 7, 8, 9 have been great.
 
No, there isn't, assuming you mean the appearance of the defragmenter
program as it runs.
 
Leythos said:
Which is why we don't read PC Mag, their testing methods don't often have
anything to do with real-world. Any serious IT Admin and any person
running servers or heavily used workstations will tell you that a full
defrag with consolidation of files will increase file access performance.
We all see it in the real world, we all see the benefits in access, and we
all appear to know more than PC Mag testing types.
Click to expand...

Agreed. For starters, that magazine only tested their theory on a SINGLE
PC. Besides, its not only performance that's an issue as there are other
reasons to defrag as well. With that said, I see that many folks tend to
defrag way to often to actually see any "measurable/seeable" results.
Let your highly used pc go for 6 months without a defrag, delete your
temp/cache first, defrag, and you'll immediately notice the speed
improvement on the first reboot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Why does XP or Win2K Defrag NOT do a complete Defrag? 2
Windows XP Desktop Classic style vs XP style Advance Appearances 1
Problem with windows and buttons style changing between XP and Cla 9
XP expat returns to defrag issue 5
cannot analyze and defrag the disk 5
Display Properties - Windows Classic style 3
Autologon and Classic Style 5
Defrag in XP Pro SPR 6

Back
Top