ssd defrag

I have an old dell xpsl702x laptop with two 256GB ssd drives which are full
and dell won't sell me any larger ssd drives.

Defrag has been running for almost day now.

Is it worth defragging to get space back or is defragging ssd not going to
gain much space when it finally finishes.

In message , Grease Monkey
writes:
I have an old dell xpsl702x laptop with two 256GB ssd drives which are full
and dell won't sell me any larger ssd drives.

Defrag has been running for almost day now.

Is it worth defragging to get space back or is defragging ssd not going to
gain much space when it finally finishes.

With modern OSs and drive sizes, defragging doesn't recover that much
space. But the main thing is, defragging on SSD drives might
significantly reduce their life, as they have significantly fewer write
cycles than HDs. If you really want to defrag them, _move_ their
contents to another drive (preferably an HD one), then move them back:
this will only involve one write (for most of their sectors; two to
their directory sectors). [Obviously if one of them is the OS drive, you
can't move all the files in this way, but it may still be worth doing.]

It's almost certainly worth reviewing what you're storing whe do you
really have 512G of material that you want SSD-speed access to?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway.
- Penny Mayes, UMRA, 2014-August

On 10/30/2018 10:27 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Grease Monkey
writes:
I have an old dell xpsl702x laptop with two 256GB ssd drives which are
full
and dell won't sell me any larger ssd drives.

Defrag has been running for almost day now.

Is it worth defragging to get space back or is defragging ssd not
going to
gain much space when it finally finishes.

With modern OSs and drive sizes, defragging doesn't recover that much
space. But the main thing is, defragging on SSD drives might
significantly reduce their life, as they have significantly fewer write
cycles than HDs. If you really want to defrag them, _move_ their
contents to another drive (preferably an HD one), then move them back:
this will only involve one write (for most of their sectors; two to
their directory sectors). [Obviously if one of them is the OS drive, you
can't move all the files in this way, but it may still be worth doing.]

It's almost certainly worth reviewing what you're storing whe do you
really have 512G of material that you want SSD-speed access to?


It's really not necessary to defrag an SSD as their seek time is so
close to Zero that not much would be gained and some life would be lost.

Rene

Il giorno Tue 30 Oct 2018 04:50:07p, *Rene Lamontagne* ha inviato su
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio
. Vediamo cosa ha scritto:

It's really not necessary to defrag an SSD as their seek time is so
close to Zero

right: going from cluster 10 to 11 to 12 to 13 takes the same time from 15
to 123456789 to 654 to 876543219


--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
http://www.bb2002.it
............ [ al lavoro ] ...........

In message , Rene Lamontagne
writes:
On 10/30/2018 10:27 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Grease Monkey
writes:
I have an old dell xpsl702x laptop with two 256GB ssd drives which
are full
and dell won't sell me any larger ssd drives.

Defrag has been running for almost day now.

Is it worth defragging to get space back or is defragging ssd not
going to
gain much space when it finally finishes.
With modern OSs and drive sizes, defragging doesn't recover that
much space. But the main thing is, defragging on SSD drives might
significantly reduce their life, as they have significantly fewer
write cycles than HDs. If you really want to defrag them, _move_
their contents to another drive (preferably an HD one), then move
them back: this will only involve one write (for most of their
sectors; two to their directory sectors). [Obviously if one of them
is the OS drive, you can't move all the files in this way, but it may
still be worth doing.]
It's almost certainly worth reviewing what you're storing whe do
you really have 512G of material that you want SSD-speed access to?


It's really not necessary to defrag an SSD as their seek time is so
close to Zero that not much would be gained and some life would be lost.

Rene

If you re-read Grease Monkey's post, he wasn't doing it for speed.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Who were your favourite TV stars or shows when you were a child? Sadly they've
all been arrested ... Ian Hislop, in Radio Times 28 September-4 October 2013

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:51:18 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Rene Lamontagne
writes:
On 10/30/2018 10:27 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Grease Monkey
writes:
I have an old dell xpsl702x laptop with two 256GB ssd drives which
are full
and dell won't sell me any larger ssd drives.

Defrag has been running for almost day now.

Is it worth defragging to get space back or is defragging ssd not
going to
gain much space when it finally finishes.
With modern OSs and drive sizes, defragging doesn't recover that
much space. But the main thing is, defragging on SSD drives might
significantly reduce their life, as they have significantly fewer
write cycles than HDs. If you really want to defrag them, _move_
their contents to another drive (preferably an HD one), then move
them back: this will only involve one write (for most of their
sectors; two to their directory sectors). [Obviously if one of them
is the OS drive, you can't move all the files in this way, but it may
still be worth doing.]
It's almost certainly worth reviewing what you're storing whe do
you really have 512G of material that you want SSD-speed access to?


It's really not necessary to defrag an SSD as their seek time is so
close to Zero that not much would be gained and some life would be lost.

Rene

If you re-read Grease Monkey's post, he wasn't doing it for speed.

Right, he was doing it to regain space, which is even worse. Defragging
doesn't reclaim space.

Then, there's the whole issue of not doing it to an SSD in the first
place. Bottom line, it was a bad idea from the start.

If he's running out of space, he should either:
1. Replace one of the laptop's internal drives with a larger one. No
need to involve Dell in that decision since they use standard drives
that can be purchased anywhere. Use youtube to get the replacement
procedure.
2. Augment the internal storage capacity with an external drive.

My choice would be #1, but #2 seems to be popular around these
newsgroups.

--

Char Jackson

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:49:18 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:51:18 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Rene Lamontagne
writes:
On 10/30/2018 10:27 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Grease Monkey
writes:
I have an old dell xpsl702x laptop with two 256GB ssd drives which
are full
and dell won't sell me any larger ssd drives.

Defrag has been running for almost day now.

Is it worth defragging to get space back or is defragging ssd not
going to
gain much space when it finally finishes.
With modern OSs and drive sizes, defragging doesn't recover that
much space. But the main thing is, defragging on SSD drives might
significantly reduce their life, as they have significantly fewer
write cycles than HDs. If you really want to defrag them, _move_
their contents to another drive (preferably an HD one), then move
them back: this will only involve one write (for most of their
sectors; two to their directory sectors). [Obviously if one of them
is the OS drive, you can't move all the files in this way, but it may
still be worth doing.]
It's almost certainly worth reviewing what you're storing whe do
you really have 512G of material that you want SSD-speed access to?


It's really not necessary to defrag an SSD as their seek time is so
close to Zero that not much would be gained and some life would be lost.

Rene

If you re-read Grease Monkey's post, he wasn't doing it for speed.

Right, he was doing it to regain space, which is even worse. Defragging
doesn't reclaim space.

Then, there's the whole issue of not doing it to an SSD in the first
place. Bottom line, it was a bad idea from the start.



Just in case he needs confirmation on both of your points above, yes,
they are both correct.

In message , Pamela
writes:
On 18:49 30 Oct 2018, Char Jackson wrote in
news
[]
Defragging doesn't reclaim space.

Wouldn't a defrag reclaim slack space hidden in cluster tips?
[]
AFAIK, a fragmented file fills all the clusters it uses except the last
one, just the same as an unfragmented one.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Apologies to [those] who may have been harmed by the scientific inaccuracies
in this post. - Roger Tilbury in UMRA, 2018-3-14

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Grease Monkey
writes:
I have an old dell xpsl702x laptop with two 256GB ssd drives which are
full and dell won't sell me any larger ssd drives.

Defrag has been running for almost day now.

Is it worth defragging to get space back or is defragging ssd not going
to gain much space when it finally finishes.

With modern OSs and drive sizes, defragging doesn't recover that much
space. But the main thing is, defragging on SSD drives might
significantly reduce their life, as they have significantly fewer write
cycles than HDs. If you really want to defrag them, _move_ their
contents to another drive (preferably an HD one), then move them back:
this will only involve one write (for most of their sectors; two to
their directory sectors). [Obviously if one of them is the OS drive, you
can't move all the files in this way, but it may still be worth doing.]

Has it gotten to the point now that SSDs are considered to be just as
reliable, long term, as the standard hard drives, even with all the
consequent writes and rewrites (also potentially limiting the SSDs
"longevity")? (I mean when used as your main drive)? But maybe SSDs still
haven't been out quite long enough to yet assess their long term reliability
and longevity.

Bill in Co wrote:


Has it gotten to the point now that SSDs are considered to be just as
reliable, long term, as the standard hard drives, even with all the
consequent writes and rewrites (also potentially limiting the SSDs
"longevity")? (I mean when used as your main drive)? But maybe SSDs still
haven't been out quite long enough to yet assess their long term reliability
and longevity.

It's gotten to the point you can use them.

They don't insta-brick like they once did.
The user "John Doe" had one insta-brick on him.

They're still potentially susceptible to power events.
Check the SMART table, to see if "the drive thinks
you've been abusing it". There's a field for that
(abrupt power loss). For example, even if I safely
remove an SSD connected to a USB to SATA 2.5" adapter,
the SSD counts my unplugging the cable after
Safely Remove as an abrupt power loss. It should not
do that, if the command was making it through the
protocol layers properly. (The drive should have been
placed in a "spun down" state.)

You still need to back them up.

Don't leave your data files on one. Leave
your OS on the SSD, move your data files to the
HDD. The "end of life" of an HDD today, is much
more gentle than the "brick state" an Intel SSD
drive enters at the end of its wear life counter.
Intel will allow neither read nor write, when the
computed amount of write cycles is exceeded.
Samsung will likely allow the drive to continue,
so you could, say, do a last backup. Intel SSDs
don't allow even that. Dig a hole in the back
yard, and throw your Intel SSD in the hole, when
that happens. "No data recovery for you."

Always research the "end-of-life" behavior of any
SSD you buy, so your backup strategy has you covered.

Paul

In message , Paul
writes:
Bill in Co wrote:

Has it gotten to the point now that SSDs are considered to be just
as reliable, long term, as the standard hard drives, even with all
the consequent writes and rewrites (also potentially limiting the
SSDs "longevity")? (I mean when used as your main drive)? But maybe
SSDs still haven't been out quite long enough to yet assess their
long term reliability and longevity.

An excellent question that is not often enough asked, and certainly even
more rarely answered!

It's gotten to the point you can use them.

Hmmm ...

They don't insta-brick like they once did.

What you say below tends to counter that - or, perhaps, you meant they
don't _unpredictably_ do so.

The user "John Doe" had one insta-brick on him.

They're still potentially susceptible to power events.
Check the SMART table, to see if "the drive thinks
you've been abusing it". There's a field for that
(abrupt power loss). For example, even if I safely
remove an SSD connected to a USB to SATA 2.5" adapter,
the SSD counts my unplugging the cable after
Safely Remove as an abrupt power loss. It should not
do that, if the command was making it through the
protocol layers properly. (The drive should have been
placed in a "spun down" state.)

Not good (-:! [I take it this "abrupt power loss" counter "punishes"
"abuse".]

You still need to back them up.

As with anything.

Don't leave your data files on one. Leave
your OS on the SSD, move your data files to the
HDD. The "end of life" of an HDD today, is much
more gentle than the "brick state" an Intel SSD
drive enters at the end of its wear life counter.

That's what's kept me on HDD (that plus the fact that most laptops only
have one drive bay anyway). [I do _partition_ it into C: (OS and
software) and D: (data).]

Intel will allow neither read nor write, when the
computed amount of write cycles is exceeded.

Has anyone asked them (and got an answer) _why_ they do that? Blocking
writes OK, but why block reads?

Samsung will likely allow the drive to continue,
so you could, say, do a last backup. Intel SSDs
don't allow even that. Dig a hole in the back
yard, and throw your Intel SSD in the hole, when
that happens. "No data recovery for you."

Always research the "end-of-life" behavior of any
SSD you buy, so your backup strategy has you covered.

Paul
JPG


Ever been frustrated that you can't *disagree* with a petition? If so, visit
255soft.uk - and please pass it on, too.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Grief generates a huge energy in you and it's better for everybody if you
harness it to do something. - Judi Dench, RT 2015/2/28-3/6

Paul wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:


Has it gotten to the point now that SSDs are considered to be just as
reliable, long term, as the standard hard drives, even with all the
consequent writes and rewrites (also potentially limiting the SSDs
"longevity")? (I mean when used as your main drive)? But maybe SSDs
still haven't been out quite long enough to yet assess their long term
reliability and longevity.

It's gotten to the point you can use them.

They don't insta-brick like they once did.
The user "John Doe" had one insta-brick on him.

They're still potentially susceptible to power events.
Check the SMART table, to see if "the drive thinks
you've been abusing it". There's a field for that
(abrupt power loss). For example, even if I safely
remove an SSD connected to a USB to SATA 2.5" adapter,
the SSD counts my unplugging the cable after
Safely Remove as an abrupt power loss. It should not
do that, if the command was making it through the
protocol layers properly. (The drive should have been
placed in a "spun down" state.)

You still need to back them up.

Don't leave your data files on one. Leave
your OS on the SSD, move your data files to the
HDD. The "end of life" of an HDD today, is much
more gentle than the "brick state" an Intel SSD
drive enters at the end of its wear life counter.
Intel will allow neither read nor write, when the
computed amount of write cycles is exceeded.
Samsung will likely allow the drive to continue,
so you could, say, do a last backup. Intel SSDs
don't allow even that. Dig a hole in the back
yard, and throw your Intel SSD in the hole, when
that happens. "No data recovery for you."

Always research the "end-of-life" behavior of any
SSD you buy, so your backup strategy has you covered.

Paul

Sounds like the most conservative approach still is to use a regular HDD.
(And when you said just leave the OS on the SSD, I'm not sure if you were
including the Program Files too, but I'm guessing you were). But the way
SSDs fail (as a brick) sure is concerning, at least to me. And I've had
that happen on a flash drive.

On 12/4/2018 2:31 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
But the way
SSDs fail (as a brick) sure is concerning, at least to me.

How old is this anecdotal information? Is it representative of current
drive designs? Also, under real world, typical use, how long before a
drive exceeds its write cycle limit?

Given that SSDs are appearing in more and more systems, including some
where it cannot be user replaced, are these fears real or imagined?

And I've had
that happen on a flash drive.

How long ago? Today's products may be different than those from a few
years ago. Also, SSDs and flash drives are not designed the same.

On 30/10/2018 15:15, Grease Monkey wrote:
I have an old dell xpsl702x laptop with two 256GB ssd drives which are full
and dell won't sell me any larger ssd drives.

Go to other online stores and buy from them. These drives are standard
and so you can buy from whoever wants to make a profit from you.



Defrag has been running for almost day now.

Not surprised because it is completely unnecessary and waste of time.


Is it worth defragging to get space back or is defragging ssd not going to
gain much space when it finally finishes.

No because defragging never recovers and space. Why should it recover
anything when the data is there there on the disk?

You will find that using a SSD drive in your old machine is completely
stupid. SSDs are not what advertisers say. You might save a few
seconds in start-up but you will get better mileage pound for pound
buying an ordinary Seagate or WD normal drives (not SSDs).




--
With over 950 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

Grease Monkey,

Is it worth defragging to get space back

In one word ? No.

That is, you seem to have misunderstood what defrag actually does. It
doesn't reclaim lost space (thats the absolute first time I've heard about
it supposingly doing that by the way), it just gathers and reorders the
parts of a file so that they are in a sequential order (it un-fragments
them. Hence the name de-frag).

While that sped up seek times on drives with mechanical arms that moved the
read/write head from cylinder to cylinder, an SSD doesn't have any such
thing (or anything else that could influence seek times in that way), so its
absolutily not nessecary.

As for reclaiming lost space ? You could use a quick, non-surface-checking
chkdsk (or alike).

The first question though is: How do you think a drive *loses* space in
normal operation? That can only happen when things go very wrong and the
disk operation is catastrophically interrupted (like a hard powerdown while
writing).

Next to that, NTFS and later filesystems are pretty-much self recovering.
In other words, it only applies to FAT(8/12/16/32) disks.

So no, a filesystem equal-or-above NTFS doesn't need it.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser