Vista defrag, why so slow.

  • Thread starter Thread starter JB
  • Start date Start date
ray said:
I've not known anyone to do that for about 15 years.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/
 
Juarez said:
Read and learn, sonny-boy.

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

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.
 
Juarez said:
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.
Click to expand...

Read what I said not what you want me to have said.
 
Juarez said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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


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
 
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
Click to expand...

Yes, really pathetic. In seven years use, generally at least four machines
at a time, I've never required that action.
 
Juarez said:
Why would I bother going through all that hassle when Linux doesn't need
to be defragged?
Click to expand...

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

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!
 
ray said:
Yes, really pathetic. In seven years use, generally at least four machines
at a time, I've never required that action.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dennis@home said:
No one said it did.
However it will benefit from it under some circumstances.
Click to expand...

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
 
JethroUK said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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