Vista defrag, why so slow.

[dennis@home]

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

That's because you can put quotas on and reserve enough disk space that it
doesn't need doing often and when you do do it you usually add disks and
stuff like that and its lost in the noise.

 

[Juarez]

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

Read and learn, sonny-boy.

http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/

 

[Juarez]

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.

Read my other reply regarding fragmentation in Linux. If Linux needs
defragmenting then it would come with a defragmenter. There are a couple
available that you can install but it isn't needed.

 

[Juarez]

Or more likely ext3 never gets defragged as there's no defragger written for
it.

There are a couple written for it. The fact is you don't need it. I posted
a link in a reply to Dennis explaining why. I sugest you go read it. Or
you could go to the Ubuntu forum right now as there is a lengthy thread
there on fragmetation in Linux right now. Anyway, even NTFS doesn't need
to be defragmented nearly as much as many people think it does.

 

[Juarez]

There are a couple written for it. The fact is you don't need it. I posted
a link in a reply to Dennis explaining why. I sugest you go read it. Or
you could go to the Ubuntu forum right now as there is a lengthy thread
there on fragmetation in Linux right now. Anyway, even NTFS doesn't need
to be defragmented nearly as much as many people think it does.

Here's the article I was talking about above to make sure you read it.

http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/

 

[dennis@home]

Read and learn, sonny-boy.

http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/

Do you even understand the very basics on that blog?
If you did you would notice that it said if you keep enough free space it
won't need defragging which is what I said.
However if you ever fill or nearly fill the disk the files will fragment
whatever that blog says.
If you want to avoid fragmentation then you can always get the applications
to allocate extents to use before they write the file. I am sure all the
application writers will be happy to help by rewriting their code to suit
your ideal.

 

[dennis@home]

Read my other reply regarding fragmentation in Linux. If Linux needs
defragmenting then it would come with a defragmenter. There are a couple
available that you can install but it isn't needed.

Read what I said not what you want me to have said.

 

[dennis@home]

There are a couple written for it. The fact is you don't need it. I posted
a link in a reply to Dennis explaining why. I sugest you go read it. Or
you could go to the Ubuntu forum right now as there is a lengthy thread
there on fragmetation in Linux right now. Anyway, even NTFS doesn't need
to be defragmented nearly as much as many people think it does.

Don't waste your time reading it unless you want a really simple guide to
fragmentation that is actually wrong for much of the time.

 

[Juarez]

Do you even understand the very basics on that blog?
If you did you would notice that it said if you keep enough free space it
won't need defragging which is what I said.
However if you ever fill or nearly fill the disk the files will fragment
whatever that blog says.
If you want to avoid fragmentation then you can always get the applications
to allocate extents to use before they write the file. I am sure all the
application writers will be happy to help by rewriting their code to suit
your ideal.

Why would I bother going through all that hassle when Linux doesn't need
to be defragged?

 

[Juarez]

Don't waste your time reading it unless you want a really simple guide to
fragmentation that is actually wrong for much of the time.

If Linux needed to be defragged it would come with such a utility out of
the box. It doesn't, for a reason.

 

[Saucy]

If Linux needed to be defragged it would come with such a utility out of
the box. It doesn't, for a reason.

Duh .. because no one bothered to write one (lame unprofitable platform, why
bother(?)) .. when they want a "defrag" they either drag everything off
then reformat the drive then drag it all back on hoping it goes back on
unfragmented - or - they convert the partition to ext2, use a ext2 utility
defragger and then reconvert the drive back to ext3 .. pathetic .. sad,
really.

Saucy

 

[ray]

Duh .. because no one bothered to write one (lame unprofitable platform, why
bother(?)) .. when they want a "defrag" they either drag everything off
then reformat the drive then drag it all back on hoping it goes back on
unfragmented - or - they convert the partition to ext2, use a ext2 utility
defragger and then reconvert the drive back to ext3 .. pathetic .. sad,
really.

Saucy

Yes, really pathetic. In seven years use, generally at least four machines
at a time, I've never required that action.

 

[dennis@home]

Why would I bother going through all that hassle when Linux doesn't need
to be defragged?

No one said it did.
However it will benefit from it under some circumstances.
Exactly the same as for NTFS and Mac OS.

What exactly have you been trying to say?

 

[Saucy]

Yes, really pathetic.

<chop>

Agreed.

 

[dennis@home]

If Linux needed to be defragged it would come with such a utility out of
the box. It doesn't, for a reason.

Linux is a kernel so defragging is not an option.

ext3 is a file system commonly used by Linux based distros. and it does
fragment when used on hard disks.
fragmentation slows down disk accesses.
defragging will make it quicker.
It doesn't come with a defragmenter for one reason.. no one has written one
that the distros feel safe with.
Not having a defrager doesn't mean the system wont benefit from one..
windows 95 didn't come with a defrager and that used fat16!

 

[dennis@home]

Yes, really pathetic. In seven years use, generally at least four machines
at a time, I've never required that action.

Have you ever tried defragging to see if it makes a difference?
If not then you aren't really in a position to comment.
No one has said the systems don't work if you let them fragment.. just that
they work better if you defrag them.

 

[JethroUK]

No one said it did.
However it will benefit from it under some circumstances.

if it will benefit from it under some circumstance then it 'needs' it & it
either 'needs' it or it doesn't

i have 2 x 320gig drives and provided i leave about 20 gig free there's no
logical reason any file should ever be fragmented and hence never need
de-fragmenting - i think Win98 used to work on this principle and hope Vista
can figure this out

 

[Charlie Tame]

if it will benefit from it under some circumstance then it 'needs' it &
it either 'needs' it or it doesn't

i have 2 x 320gig drives and provided i leave about 20 gig free there's
no logical reason any file should ever be fragmented and hence never
need de-fragmenting - i think Win98 used to work on this principle and
hope Vista can figure this out

Quite so, lack of space forces fragmentation and beyond a certain level
it becomes "Profitable" to do it, anything beyond a noticeable slowdown
simple equates to unnecessary wear on the drive

Usually I wait until a major uninstall or delete no longer needed stuff
session is done and then defragment, maybe every few months.

 

[ray]

Linux is a kernel so defragging is not an option.

ext3 is a file system commonly used by Linux based distros. and it does
fragment when used on hard disks.
fragmentation slows down disk accesses.
defragging will make it quicker.
It doesn't come with a defragmenter for one reason.. no one has written one
that the distros feel safe with.
Not having a defrager doesn't mean the system wont benefit from one..
windows 95 didn't come with a defrager and that used fat16!

Easy enough to defrag an ext3 file system with the ext2 defragger which
someone wrote several years ago - simply not beneficial to do so. Not
worth the effort as Linux files systems do not slow down as a result of
defragmentation - due to the design.

 

[ray]

Have you ever tried defragging to see if it makes a difference?
If not then you aren't really in a position to comment.
No one has said the systems don't work if you let them fragment.. just that
they work better if you defrag them.

Sure, from time to time I've done that - probably a half dozen times -
never made any noticeable difference on a Linux machine.