Vista Defragmenter

[Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth]

The Vista defrag only kicks in when the system is IDLE......so no loss
of performance there then, is there?

Err there is no loss of performance Err. Or, Err, there might be. Err,
depending Err on what you Err are looking for. Err.

 

[Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth]

And there was no need to - that's the default setting of the Vista
defrag utility anyway - in the background, on system idle....

Err - You just might be right, Err. If Err, there is no default setting
then, Err, you don't need to worry about it. Err.

 

[Bill Daggett]

Why is not being able to afford upgrading a ridiculous statement??
I don't have the money do it.

I'm not contesting that. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to even
bring up that possibility when you start to see your system "slow"
down. It once was fast enough... right? So the hardware is fine.

 

[JamesJ]

Got it.

James

I'm not contesting that. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to even
bring up that possibility when you start to see your system "slow"
down. It once was fast enough... right? So the hardware is fine.

 

[ray]

BINGO - That was my point exactly. If you wouldn't do that, then why
would you push Ubuntu in the Vista forum? Got it now?

I most certainly DO have it. And I did not mention Ubuntu until YOU
brought it up. I was merely making the point that in the 21st century a
properly designed file system does not need continual defragging to
maintain responsive performance. Please explain how that is 'pushing'
Ubuntu.

 

[+Bob+]

But that is NOT, in general, due to a fragmented HDD!
Defragging makes very little difference, in general, to system performance.

Inaccurate. On some systems it makes a tremendous difference. It
depends entirely on how much activity (add/delete) the disk drive
sees.

 

[+Bob+]

The Vista defrag only kicks in when the system is IDLE......so no loss of
performance there then, is there?

Yes there is. It's a noticeable thrashing of the drive. When you start
a foreground program and the disk is being thrashed by the defrag, you
can see a noticeable delay.

Not to mention, it's notoriously inefficient. Go to any system running
the background defrag. Run a defrag on it. Notice how long it has to
run, even though it's supposedly defragged.

 

[+Bob+]

I most certainly DO have it. And I did not mention Ubuntu until YOU
brought it up. I was merely making the point that in the 21st century a
properly designed file system does not need continual defragging to
maintain responsive performance. Please explain how that is 'pushing'
Ubuntu.

MS started claiming when NT came out that NTFS did not need to be
defragged. Actual performance measurement proved them incorrect

 

[JamesJ]

In my case you're right.
I find myself trying alot of shareware which 5% of I might end up using
extensively. Although this probably isn't a very gpood idea (with spyware
and
the like) I do a lot of uninstalling of the shareware I don't want. So, I'm
pobably responable
for some of the system slow downs.

James

 

[ray]

Yeah, just like linux claims it never needs to be defragged...that's why
there are dozens of linux defragmenting software utilities
available!...LOL!

There are not dozens. There are a few. I've never known anyone to use
them.

 

[Dave Warren]

In message <[email protected]> +Bob+

Background defrag is a waste of performance you could be using in the
foreground.

Vista's defragmentation tool only works while the system is idle, both
by way of a backoff algorithm, and also the disk queuing system.

Not to mention, defragging a disk is a moderately risky
operation on the drive. Doing it while foreground tasks are running is
not very smart.

There is virtually no risk at all with a modern defragmentation tool
using Windows' NTFS defragmation APIs. When a cluster is moved, there
are several steps, each of which is journaled so at no point will a
failure or interruption cause corruption or data loss.

 

[+Bob+]

In message <[email protected]> +Bob+


Vista's defragmentation tool only works while the system is idle, both
by way of a backoff algorithm, and also the disk queuing system.


There is virtually no risk at all with a modern defragmentation tool
using Windows' NTFS defragmation APIs. When a cluster is moved, there
are several steps, each of which is journaled so at no point will a
failure or interruption cause corruption or data loss.

If there's a power failure or crash, you can easily end up with
errors. Not to mention, Vista already has all sorts of verified issues
with the file system (performance; refusing to acknowledge changes
without a reboot, etc). Adding another level of risk to it seems like
a very poor idea.

 

[ray]

There are more than "a few" and their very existence belies your
assertion that they are not need.
The FUD you spread is noted.

Yes frankie they exist. If you do a web search you might actually be able
to find some. The ones of which I am aware defragment ext2 file systems.
I've never heard of one for a more modern fs such as reiser. You will
also find that NO SIGNIFICANT Linux distribution includes a
defragmentation tool in it's base installation. It must not be very
necessary.

Just for grins, do a web search for 'defragmentation Linux' - most of
what you will find are explnations of why Linux does not need it.

 

[ray]

Just for grins..read more...there is some very telling evidence that
ext3 needs to be defragged occasionally!

And ext3 is merely ext2 with journaling. As I said, none for modern fs
such as reiser et. al.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

Background defrag is a waste of performance you could be using in the
foreground. Not to mention, defragging a disk is a moderately risky
operation on the drive. Doing it while foreground tasks are running is
not very smart.

Well, if you think that's a risk worth worrying about then no one
should ever install any programs on their computer since program
installs trash far more systems then a background defrager ever has.
If you run the built in defrag as it's intended it simply is always
doing little bits of clean up and there is no need for it to take over
the system like the store bought ones do so that people can look at
the pretty little squares changing colors - been there, did that, am
over it.

 

[Gordon]

Inaccurate. On some systems it makes a tremendous difference. It
depends entirely on how much activity (add/delete) the disk drive
sees.

Not inaccurate at all. In general, most users will notice only very slight
improvements by defragging.
Speed depends on many factors of which an unfragged HDD is a very small
one...

 

[Gordon]

Yes there is. It's a noticeable thrashing of the drive. When you start
a foreground program and the disk is being thrashed by the defrag, you
can see a noticeable delay.

Rubbish. Never noticed that AT ALL.

Not to mention, it's notoriously inefficient. Go to any system running
the background defrag. Run a defrag on it. Notice how long it has to
run, even though it's supposedly defragged.

<sigh> WHY? WHY even BOTHER to run a manual defrag if it's doing it FOR you
automatically? If it ain't broke DON'T FIX IT!!!!!!!

 

[Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth]

Rubbish. Never noticed that AT ALL.



<sigh> WHY? WHY even BOTHER to run a manual defrag if it's doing it FOR
you automatically? If it ain't broke DON'T FIX IT!!!!!!!

Err - Because he wants to. Err. <sigh>

 

[Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth]

Not inaccurate at all. In general, most users will notice only very
slight improvements by defragging.
Speed depends on many factors of which an unfragged HDD is a very small
one...

Err <sigh> you don't know what most users will notice unless Err <sigh>
you spoke with most users. Err <sigh>

 

[mazorj]

Well, if you think that's a risk worth worrying about then no one
should ever install any programs on their computer since program
installs trash far more systems then a background defrager ever has.
If you run the built in defrag as it's intended it simply is always
doing little bits of clean up and there is no need for it to take
over
the system like the store bought ones do so that people can look at
the pretty little squares changing colors - been there, did that, am
over it.

Practically speaking, just running a defrag on a set schedule and
preferably when you won't be using it is the best advice. I do that
with my various back-ups and security sweeps.

However, there's more information in these other defrag programs than
watching the lights blink, such as listing files that won't defrag.
When hiberfil.sys came up on a manual defrag of my laptop as a file
that could not be defragged, I deleted it and recovered quite a bit of
space. I had hibernation turned off but didn't realize that it
already had created a whopping useless file. Deleting it also allowed
the defragger to pack more files into the first band of written
clusters. I'm sure the performance increase was trivial, but the
recovered space on a relatively small laptop HD was worth doing.

Seeing the list of undefraggable files also taught me that in order to
squeeze the absolute most out of defragging, shut down every (and I do
mean every) other app before defragging. An open program can put a
hold on auxiliary files it creates while running and the defragger
won't touch them. Again, the effect is small but if you're not using
the computer, why not shut down everything?

Perusing the other undefraggable/unmovable files and the pretty
squares also can be instructive as to what's happening "under the
hood". For example, most writes are done in two bands, one starting
at the beginning of the HD, and another band starting at about the
middle of the drive. This must be a deliberate write strategy.
Otherwise, used clusters would be randomly strewn across the drive.
I've also backtracked undefraggable/unmovable files to one or two
resource-consuming processes that I didn't need and could be
terminated.