Vista defrag, why so slow.

[norm]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:04:51 -0400, Saucy wrote:

< chop >


As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A
modern OS
with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.



Good one! Yes, in the modern world we shouldn't need vehicles, we
should be
tele-transporting through fusion powered portals.

Saucy

Ah - but there are modern operating systems which do not require
regular
defragmentation - end of analogy.



You are probably referring to some UNIX/Linux OS based on 60's code
and ways [so it's not "modern"] using some obscure file system that
can narry be found on a desktop.

Saucy

Saucy

And you need to do a bit more research before making such statements.

In other words I hit the nail on the head! Have a nice evening.

Saucy

Highly unlikely if you are not familiar with a nail. I will have a nice
evening, and hope you do too. Enjoy.

 

[Frank]

Ubuntu does not come "stock" with a defrag utility. I see one available
for installation from the repository. The need to install and use it is
questionable.

Parsing words huh? When I installed ubuntu and did the 122+
automatic/recommended dl's, I noticed a defragmentor after the dl's were
complete. But, seeing as how I immediately did the dl's before doing any
things else...not sure when it arrived...so I don't know what I'd call
that...stock or optional/recommended.
The point being...if no defragmentor is needed for linux, then why did
the guy in germany who designs all of the linux software in his garage,
in his spare time, bother to write one?
Frank

 

[norm]

Parsing words huh? When I installed ubuntu and did the 122+
automatic/recommended dl's, I noticed a defragmentor after the dl's were
complete. But, seeing as how I immediately did the dl's before doing any
things else...not sure when it arrived...so I don't know what I'd call
that...stock or optional/recommended.
The point being...if no defragmentor is needed for linux, then why did
the guy in germany who designs all of the linux software in his garage,
in his spare time, bother to write one?
Frank

Parsing? Hardly. I am not sure what you did when you did your updates,
but I am current on updates on my machine, and a defragmenter is NOT
installed on my machine from updates OR the original installation. The
repository shows one defragmenter utility available, and it is not
marked as installed. As to why defragmenters are written for linux, I
have no idea. But since it came from the garage of a german you
evidently know or know of, ask him.

 

[Frank]

Parsing? Hardly. I am not sure what you did when you did your updates,
but I am current on updates on my machine, and a defragmenter is NOT
installed on my machine from updates OR the original installation. The
repository shows one defragmenter utility available, and it is not
marked as installed. As to why defragmenters are written for linux, I
have no idea. But since it came from the garage of a german you
evidently know or know of, ask him.

hehehe...frank(ly) norm, I couldn't possibly care less about linux.
It is a desktop toy os, IMO.
YMMV.
Frank

 

[norm]

hehehe...frank(ly) norm, I couldn't possibly care less about linux.
It is a desktop toy os, IMO.
YMMV.
Frank

Then don't make stupid statements that you cannot back up.

 

[Adam Albright]

Nothing more fun than watching Frank trying to say he didn't say what
he said.

 

[ray]

Well...then why do they all come with one?
Frank

They don't.

 

[ray]

Then why does one come stock with every os?
Frank

It doesn't. I don't find any included with: Ubuntu, Mandriva, SLED,
Fedora, Gentoo, . . .

 

[ray]

Parsing words huh? When I installed ubuntu and did the 122+
automatic/recommended dl's, I noticed a defragmentor after the dl's were
complete. But, seeing as how I immediately did the dl's before doing any
things else...not sure when it arrived...so I don't know what I'd call
that...stock or optional/recommended.
The point being...if no defragmentor is needed for linux, then why did
the guy in germany who designs all of the linux software in his garage,
in his spare time, bother to write one?
Frank

Actually, there is one available for ext2. Which is a file system hardly
anyone uses any more, though it is an option. Mostly folks use ext3 or
reiser - I use reiser almost exclusively - I've had my Ubuntu 7.04
installed for several months, gone through all the updates, and 'defrag'
is still not installed.

 

[Juarez]

As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A modern OS
with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.

Yea, but Microsoft cur out the up to date file system so we still need to
defrag occasionally. On a side note, Linux never needs to be defragged.

 

[Juarez]

As a counter counter you should note that all the common file systems for
windows, linux and Mac fragment.

Linux never needs to be defragged, nor a Mac as it is a Unix OS too.

 

[dennis@home]

Yea, but Microsoft cur out the up to date file system so we still need to
defrag occasionally. On a side note, Linux never needs to be defragged.

As a side note NTFS never *needs* to be defragged either.
However like *all* disk based file systems it will benefit from being
defragged under some circumstances.
Even file systems that claim not to require defragging actually do
defragging in the background like Macs do (they call it hotfile
optimization.. relocating the files for better performance.. defragging).
Many Unix admins will defrag a file system by doing a dump and restore
occasionally.

 

[dennis@home]

Linux never needs to be defragged, nor a Mac as it is a Unix OS too.

NTFS does need defragging either.
However they will all benefit from it.
Macs defrag in the background even though they are based on BSD BTW.

 

[Saucy]

Yea, but Microsoft cur out the up to date file system so we still need to
defrag occasionally. On a side note, Linux never needs to be defragged.

Or more likely ext3 never gets defragged as there's no defragger written for
it. Doesn't mean it doesn't need it. The hype around UNIX/Solaris is
incredible ..

... For example:

I read a Sun PDF bragging how much quicker Solaris ZFS is over NTFS. The
example they used was the creation of a very large partition (approx.
terabyte) and formatting it. A mere two commands could so it in Solaris and
it took mere moments whereas it takes many commands and four hours with
Microsoft's system. My bull detector went up and sure enough it was pure
UNIX/Linux bull:

Solaris ZFS:

# zpool create -f tank (32 disks)
# zfs create tank/fs

Microsoft NTFS

diskpart>
create volume stripe disk=(32 disks)
DiskPart successfully created the volume.
diskpart>
assign letter=s
DiskPart successfully assigned the driver letter or mount
point.
diskpart>
exit
c:/>
format s: /fs:ntfs
The type of the file system is RAW.
The new file system is NTFS.
WARNING, ALL DATA ON NON-REMOVABLE DISK DRIVES S:
WILL BE LOST!
Proceed with Format (Y/N)? Y
Verifying 840012M
Volume label (32 characters, ENTER for none)?
<rtn>
Creating file system structures.
Format complete.
860172284 KB total disk space.
860080288 KB are available.


Most of the lines in the Microsoft section are FEEDBACK something lacking in
with the UNIX utility. But look again .. the four hours the UNIX/Linux
zealot claims it takes Microsoft NTFS ? .. look carefully .. no /q switch !
Just add a /q switch to the format command and the format would have been
done in minutes not hours. Sly, but typical of UNIX/Linux zealotry.

So by this cr*p, SUN is claiming that Solaris ZFS is faster than NTFS.
Unbelievable .. and, no, I didn't believe it. Their PDF went on with various
benchmarks, but by then they had so discredited themselves that I couldn't
believe the benchmarks neither [which, BTW, used "open source" applications
usually not written with Windows in mind and at best ported to the Windows
platform e.g. PostgreSQL released under a BSD license].

Saucy

 

[ray]

As a side note NTFS never *needs* to be defragged either.
However like *all* disk based file systems it will benefit from being
defragged under some circumstances.
Even file systems that claim not to require defragging actually do
defragging in the background like Macs do (they call it hotfile
optimization.. relocating the files for better performance.. defragging).
Many Unix admins will defrag a file system by doing a dump and restore
occasionally.

I've not known anyone to do that for about 15 years.

 

[norm]

Yea, but Microsoft cur out the up to date file system so we still need to
defrag occasionally. On a side note, Linux never needs to be defragged.

Or more likely ext3 never gets defragged as there's no defragger written
for it. Doesn't mean it doesn't need it. The hype around UNIX/Solaris is
incredible ..

.. For example:

I read a Sun PDF bragging how much quicker Solaris ZFS is over NTFS. The
example they used was the creation of a very large partition (approx.
terabyte) and formatting it. A mere two commands could so it in Solaris
and it took mere moments whereas it takes many commands and four hours
with Microsoft's system. My bull detector went up and sure enough it was
pure UNIX/Linux bull:

Solaris ZFS:

# zpool create -f tank (32 disks)
# zfs create tank/fs

Microsoft NTFS

diskpart>
create volume stripe disk=(32 disks)
DiskPart successfully created the volume.
diskpart>
assign letter=s
DiskPart successfully assigned the driver letter or mount
point.
diskpart>
exit
c:/>
format s: /fs:ntfs
The type of the file system is RAW.
The new file system is NTFS.
WARNING, ALL DATA ON NON-REMOVABLE DISK DRIVES S:
WILL BE LOST!
Proceed with Format (Y/N)? Y
Verifying 840012M
Volume label (32 characters, ENTER for none)?
<rtn>
Creating file system structures.
Format complete.
860172284 KB total disk space.
860080288 KB are available.


Most of the lines in the Microsoft section are FEEDBACK something
lacking in with the UNIX utility. But look again .. the four hours the
UNIX/Linux zealot claims it takes Microsoft NTFS ? .. look carefully ..
no /q switch ! Just add a /q switch to the format command and the format
would have been done in minutes not hours. Sly, but typical of
UNIX/Linux zealotry.

So by this cr*p, SUN is claiming that Solaris ZFS is faster than NTFS.
Unbelievable .. and, no, I didn't believe it. Their PDF went on with
various benchmarks, but by then they had so discredited themselves that
I couldn't believe the benchmarks neither [which, BTW, used "open
source" applications usually not written with Windows in mind and at
best ported to the Windows platform e.g. PostgreSQL released under a BSD
license].

Saucy

Don't let your confusion about the topic stop you from wandering off and
commenting about something totally unrelated to defragging in an attempt
to make a point. Solaris is not linux. Zfs is a solaris file system (the
default files system on most linux distributions is ext3).

 

[Saucy]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:22:54 -0600, ray wrote:


As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A modern OS
with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.

Yea, but Microsoft cur out the up to date file system so we still need
to
defrag occasionally. On a side note, Linux never needs to be defragged.

Or more likely ext3 never gets defragged as there's no defragger written
for it. Doesn't mean it doesn't need it. The hype around UNIX/Solaris is
incredible ..

.. For example:

I read a Sun PDF bragging how much quicker Solaris ZFS is over NTFS. The
example they used was the creation of a very large partition (approx.
terabyte) and formatting it. A mere two commands could so it in Solaris
and it took mere moments whereas it takes many commands and four hours
with Microsoft's system. My bull detector went up and sure enough it was
pure UNIX/Linux bull:

Solaris ZFS:

# zpool create -f tank (32 disks)
# zfs create tank/fs

Microsoft NTFS

diskpart>
create volume stripe disk=(32 disks)
DiskPart successfully created the volume.
diskpart>
assign letter=s
DiskPart successfully assigned the driver letter or mount
point.
diskpart>
exit
c:/>
format s: /fs:ntfs
The type of the file system is RAW.
The new file system is NTFS.
WARNING, ALL DATA ON NON-REMOVABLE DISK DRIVES S:
WILL BE LOST!
Proceed with Format (Y/N)? Y
Verifying 840012M
Volume label (32 characters, ENTER for none)?
<rtn>
Creating file system structures.
Format complete.
860172284 KB total disk space.
860080288 KB are available.


Most of the lines in the Microsoft section are FEEDBACK something lacking
in with the UNIX utility. But look again .. the four hours the UNIX/Linux
zealot claims it takes Microsoft NTFS ? .. look carefully .. no /q
switch ! Just add a /q switch to the format command and the format would
have been done in minutes not hours. Sly, but typical of UNIX/Linux
zealotry.

So by this cr*p, SUN is claiming that Solaris ZFS is faster than NTFS.
Unbelievable .. and, no, I didn't believe it. Their PDF went on with
various benchmarks, but by then they had so discredited themselves that I
couldn't believe the benchmarks neither [which, BTW, used "open source"
applications usually not written with Windows in mind and at best ported
to the Windows platform e.g. PostgreSQL released under a BSD license].

Saucy

Don't let your confusion about the topic stop you from wandering off and
commenting about something totally unrelated to defragging in an attempt
to make a point. Solaris is not linux. Zfs is a solaris file system (the
default files system on most linux distributions is ext3).

Well, I'm just pointing out that the UNIX/Linux crowd make some very
specious claims about their file systems and are willing commit distortion
and ommision to dupe people into believing them. This claim that there's no
need for defragging on the various UNIX/Linux file systems is one of them.

Saucy

 

[norm]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:22:54 -0600, ray wrote:


As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A modern OS
with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.

Yea, but Microsoft cur out the up to date file system so we still
need to
defrag occasionally. On a side note, Linux never needs to be defragged.


Or more likely ext3 never gets defragged as there's no defragger
written for it. Doesn't mean it doesn't need it. The hype around
UNIX/Solaris is incredible ..

.. For example:

I read a Sun PDF bragging how much quicker Solaris ZFS is over NTFS.
The example they used was the creation of a very large partition
(approx. terabyte) and formatting it. A mere two commands could so it
in Solaris and it took mere moments whereas it takes many commands
and four hours with Microsoft's system. My bull detector went up and
sure enough it was pure UNIX/Linux bull:

Solaris ZFS:

# zpool create -f tank (32 disks)
# zfs create tank/fs

Microsoft NTFS

diskpart>
create volume stripe disk=(32 disks)
DiskPart successfully created the volume.
diskpart>
assign letter=s
DiskPart successfully assigned the driver letter or mount
point.
diskpart>
exit
c:/>
format s: /fs:ntfs
The type of the file system is RAW.
The new file system is NTFS.
WARNING, ALL DATA ON NON-REMOVABLE DISK DRIVES S:
WILL BE LOST!
Proceed with Format (Y/N)? Y
Verifying 840012M
Volume label (32 characters, ENTER for none)?
<rtn>
Creating file system structures.
Format complete.
860172284 KB total disk space.
860080288 KB are available.


Most of the lines in the Microsoft section are FEEDBACK something
lacking in with the UNIX utility. But look again .. the four hours
the UNIX/Linux zealot claims it takes Microsoft NTFS ? .. look
carefully .. no /q switch ! Just add a /q switch to the format
command and the format would have been done in minutes not hours.
Sly, but typical of UNIX/Linux zealotry.

So by this cr*p, SUN is claiming that Solaris ZFS is faster than
NTFS. Unbelievable .. and, no, I didn't believe it. Their PDF went on
with various benchmarks, but by then they had so discredited
themselves that I couldn't believe the benchmarks neither [which,
BTW, used "open source" applications usually not written with Windows
in mind and at best ported to the Windows platform e.g. PostgreSQL
released under a BSD license].

Saucy

Don't let your confusion about the topic stop you from wandering off
and commenting about something totally unrelated to defragging in an
attempt to make a point. Solaris is not linux. Zfs is a solaris file
system (the default files system on most linux distributions is ext3).

Well, I'm just pointing out that the UNIX/Linux crowd make some very
specious claims about their file systems and are willing commit
distortion and ommision to dupe people into believing them. This claim
that there's no need for defragging on the various UNIX/Linux file
systems is one of them.

Saucy

That is your opinion, and you are entitled. Regardless of your opinion,
defragging on an ext3 file system is not REQUIRED. That is not a
distortion, specious claim or omission. It is simply the way it is. Read
the following (with a grain of salt if you wish):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3#Defragmentation

 

[Saucy]

Saucy wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:22:54 -0600, ray wrote:


As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A modern
OS
with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.

Yea, but Microsoft cur out the up to date file system so we still need
to
defrag occasionally. On a side note, Linux never needs to be
defragged.


Or more likely ext3 never gets defragged as there's no defragger
written for it. Doesn't mean it doesn't need it. The hype around
UNIX/Solaris is incredible ..

.. For example:

I read a Sun PDF bragging how much quicker Solaris ZFS is over NTFS.
The example they used was the creation of a very large partition
(approx. terabyte) and formatting it. A mere two commands could so it
in Solaris and it took mere moments whereas it takes many commands and
four hours with Microsoft's system. My bull detector went up and sure
enough it was pure UNIX/Linux bull:

Solaris ZFS:

# zpool create -f tank (32 disks)
# zfs create tank/fs

Microsoft NTFS

diskpart>
create volume stripe disk=(32 disks)
DiskPart successfully created the volume.
diskpart>
assign letter=s
DiskPart successfully assigned the driver letter or mount
point.
diskpart>
exit
c:/>
format s: /fs:ntfs
The type of the file system is RAW.
The new file system is NTFS.
WARNING, ALL DATA ON NON-REMOVABLE DISK DRIVES S:
WILL BE LOST!
Proceed with Format (Y/N)? Y
Verifying 840012M
Volume label (32 characters, ENTER for none)?
<rtn>
Creating file system structures.
Format complete.
860172284 KB total disk space.
860080288 KB are available.


Most of the lines in the Microsoft section are FEEDBACK something
lacking in with the UNIX utility. But look again .. the four hours the
UNIX/Linux zealot claims it takes Microsoft NTFS ? .. look carefully
.. no /q switch ! Just add a /q switch to the format command and the
format would have been done in minutes not hours. Sly, but typical of
UNIX/Linux zealotry.

So by this cr*p, SUN is claiming that Solaris ZFS is faster than NTFS.
Unbelievable .. and, no, I didn't believe it. Their PDF went on with
various benchmarks, but by then they had so discredited themselves that
I couldn't believe the benchmarks neither [which, BTW, used "open
source" applications usually not written with Windows in mind and at
best ported to the Windows platform e.g. PostgreSQL released under a
BSD license].

Saucy

Don't let your confusion about the topic stop you from wandering off and
commenting about something totally unrelated to defragging in an attempt
to make a point. Solaris is not linux. Zfs is a solaris file system (the
default files system on most linux distributions is ext3).

Well, I'm just pointing out that the UNIX/Linux crowd make some very
specious claims about their file systems and are willing commit
distortion and ommision to dupe people into believing them. This claim
that there's no need for defragging on the various UNIX/Linux file
systems is one of them.

Saucy

That is your opinion, and you are entitled. Regardless of your opinion,
defragging on an ext3 file system is not REQUIRED. That is not a
distortion, specious claim or omission. It is simply the way it is. Read
the following (with a grain of salt if you wish):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3#Defragmentation

That article simply affirms what I said: there are no *adequate* tools
available to defragment ext3 - it does say there are some tools for
defragging it .. but the filesystem has to be converted to ext2 before using
them and then back again to continue on on ext3. The article does not say
ext3 file systems could not benefit from defragging. So, yes, with a grain
of salt.

Saucy

 

[norm]

Saucy wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:22:54 -0600, ray wrote:


As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A
modern OS
with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.

Yea, but Microsoft cur out the up to date file system so we still
need to
defrag occasionally. On a side note, Linux never needs to be
defragged.


Or more likely ext3 never gets defragged as there's no defragger
written for it. Doesn't mean it doesn't need it. The hype around
UNIX/Solaris is incredible ..

.. For example:

I read a Sun PDF bragging how much quicker Solaris ZFS is over
NTFS. The example they used was the creation of a very large
partition (approx. terabyte) and formatting it. A mere two commands
could so it in Solaris and it took mere moments whereas it takes
many commands and four hours with Microsoft's system. My bull
detector went up and sure enough it was pure UNIX/Linux bull:

Solaris ZFS:

# zpool create -f tank (32 disks)
# zfs create tank/fs

Microsoft NTFS

diskpart>
create volume stripe disk=(32 disks)
DiskPart successfully created the volume.
diskpart>
assign letter=s
DiskPart successfully assigned the driver letter or mount
point.
diskpart>
exit
c:/>
format s: /fs:ntfs
The type of the file system is RAW.
The new file system is NTFS.
WARNING, ALL DATA ON NON-REMOVABLE DISK DRIVES S:
WILL BE LOST!
Proceed with Format (Y/N)? Y
Verifying 840012M
Volume label (32 characters, ENTER for none)?
<rtn>
Creating file system structures.
Format complete.
860172284 KB total disk space.
860080288 KB are available.


Most of the lines in the Microsoft section are FEEDBACK something
lacking in with the UNIX utility. But look again .. the four hours
the UNIX/Linux zealot claims it takes Microsoft NTFS ? .. look
carefully .. no /q switch ! Just add a /q switch to the format
command and the format would have been done in minutes not hours.
Sly, but typical of UNIX/Linux zealotry.

So by this cr*p, SUN is claiming that Solaris ZFS is faster than
NTFS. Unbelievable .. and, no, I didn't believe it. Their PDF went
on with various benchmarks, but by then they had so discredited
themselves that I couldn't believe the benchmarks neither [which,
BTW, used "open source" applications usually not written with
Windows in mind and at best ported to the Windows platform e.g.
PostgreSQL released under a BSD license].

Saucy

Don't let your confusion about the topic stop you from wandering off
and commenting about something totally unrelated to defragging in an
attempt to make a point. Solaris is not linux. Zfs is a solaris file
system (the default files system on most linux distributions is ext3).

--
norm


Well, I'm just pointing out that the UNIX/Linux crowd make some very
specious claims about their file systems and are willing commit
distortion and ommision to dupe people into believing them. This
claim that there's no need for defragging on the various UNIX/Linux
file systems is one of them.

Saucy

That is your opinion, and you are entitled. Regardless of your
opinion, defragging on an ext3 file system is not REQUIRED. That is
not a distortion, specious claim or omission. It is simply the way it
is. Read the following (with a grain of salt if you wish):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3#Defragmentation

That article simply affirms what I said: there are no *adequate* tools
available to defragment ext3 - it does say there are some tools for
defragging it .. but the filesystem has to be converted to ext2 before
using them and then back again to continue on on ext3. The article does
not say ext3 file systems could not benefit from defragging. So, yes,
with a grain of salt.

Saucy

The article also does not state that the ext3 file system WOULD benefit
from defragging. If there were a overwhelming need, there would be an
"adequate" app available. No doubt that there is defragmentation in
ext3, but not to the extent where it has be be addressed, and so far, it
hasn't been addressed.