Is Defragging a Waste of Time?

Leythos

Why should Disk Defragmenter pose any greater risk than any other
programme that opens and close files? Security software probably poses a
greater threat through false positives than Disk Defragmenter
operations. Same remarks apply with regard to chkdsk.

--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

..
Leythos wrote:
In article , says...
If you read up on defragging on another NG
(comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage) you'll find that the general
consensus is that defragging is risky and a waste of time. That
sentiment doesn't appear to be reflected on here.


Having worked with MS based computers since the early DOS days,
working with massive server farms....

Defrag, properly done, maintains performance of all Windows based
systems, it can also restore lost performance to systems that have not
been defragged in a long time.

Defrag is only risky of you have flaky hardware or have a OS that
doesn't run in a stable manner.

Jose wrote:
On Jun 10, 10:01 am, "Keith Wilby" wrote:
If you read up on defragging on another NG
(comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage) you'll find that the general
consensus is that defragging is risky and a waste of time. That
sentiment doesn't appear to be reflected on here.

Can I invite comments from this group on this please? I'm no PC
"boffin" and neither am I a numpty but I'd like to know whether or
not I should defrag periodically.

Thanks.

Numpty:

Scottish usage:
a) Someone who (sometimes unwittingly) by speech or action
demonstrates a lack of knowledge or misconception of a particular
subject or situation to the amusement of others.


Had to look that one up. Thanks for the vocabulary boost.

IMHO, the XP defragger is fine for me. I run it a couple times a year
and don't realize any noticeable performance improvment, never lost a
byte, but the before and after pictures sometimes make me feel better
because sometimes it looks like something good must have happened.

Some people are compelled to defrag every day. I just don't get that
one.

You can download "better" defraggers and even pay for them, but I
think you will get as many opinions as people you ask. You will get
the "it depends on what you are doing with your system" responses
also.

You can also feel better after reading a little about what happens
when you defrag, what causes fragmentation, etc.

The trap not to fall into is thinking that defragging is some magic
bullet that is going to solve a percieved or major performance
issue.

If you say, "my system sure is slow", some numpty is going to come
along and assure you that you need to defrag your had drive right
away. Maybe, but more than likely a performance problem is someplace
else and you will still have your original problem after the defrag.

That's a good post IMO. Defrag is one one small bsush stroke in a large
picture. It's a forest/tree thing. It's just a tree; not the forest.

Regards,

Twayne

In article ,
says...

Leythos

Why should Disk Defragmenter pose any greater risk than any other
programme that opens and close files? Security software probably poses a
greater threat through false positives than Disk Defragmenter
operations. Same remarks apply with regard to chkdsk.

Defragging doesn't pose any greater risk then anything that touches ALL
files on your computer. In normal operation, you do not touch ALL files
on your computer when you surf the web, when you edit a couple word
document, when you pay a online/local game.

When you defrag a drive, depending on how long it's ben and what you've
been doing, it's quite possible that the defrag program will move many
blocks of most files - there lies the added risk, defrag hits more
things than does normal daily operation.


--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
(remove 999 for proper email address)

"Keith Wilby" wrote in message
...
If you read up on defragging on another NG
(comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage) you'll find that the general consensus
is that defragging is risky and a waste of time. That sentiment doesn't
appear to be reflected on here.

Can I invite comments from this group on this please? I'm no PC "boffin"
and neither am I a numpty but I'd like to know whether or not I should
defrag periodically.

Thanks.

I could maybe understand waste of time, but risky? Why would it be risky?

For file fragmentation to noticeably effect performance, it would have to
be pretty severe. You might lose maybe mins in the course of a year
depending on usage and fragmentation. But you could lose hours waiting
around for defrag to finish, depending on how often you run it. Or not a
all, if you have it scheduled while you are away from the computer.

My idea to keep fragmentation down, I moved all my temp files to a 1GB USB
flash drive. It frees the hard drive from wasting time seeking, reading and
writing lot of tiny little empty files all over the place on the hard drive.

Tae Song

Read / writes access times are to my understanding noticeably slower
over USB connections slower than to an internal drive. Any benefits of
segregation are negated by your choice of how to segregate. Using a
separate partition on the original or a secomd internal hard drive would
realise greater benefits.


--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tae Song wrote:
"Keith Wilby" wrote in message
...
If you read up on defragging on another NG
(comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage) you'll find that the general
consensus is that defragging is risky and a waste of time. That
sentiment doesn't appear to be reflected on here.

Can I invite comments from this group on this please? I'm no PC
"boffin" and neither am I a numpty but I'd like to know whether or
not I should defrag periodically.

Thanks.

I could maybe understand waste of time, but risky? Why would it be
risky?
For file fragmentation to noticeably effect performance, it would
have to be pretty severe. You might lose maybe mins in the course of
a year depending on usage and fragmentation. But you could lose
hours waiting around for defrag to finish, depending on how often you
run it. Or not a all, if you have it scheduled while you are away
from the computer.
My idea to keep fragmentation down, I moved all my temp files to a
1GB USB flash drive. It frees the hard drive from wasting time
seeking, reading and writing lot of tiny little empty files all over
the place on the hard drive.

Gerry,
He's got all that covered. Read this:

http://groups.google.com/group/micro...ce704b8?hl=en#

SC Tom

"Gerry" wrote in message
...
Tae Song

Read / writes access times are to my understanding noticeably slower over
USB connections slower than to an internal drive. Any benefits of
segregation are negated by your choice of how to segregate. Using a
separate partition on the original or a secomd internal hard drive would
realise greater benefits.


--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tae Song wrote:
"Keith Wilby" wrote in message
...
If you read up on defragging on another NG
(comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage) you'll find that the general
consensus is that defragging is risky and a waste of time. That
sentiment doesn't appear to be reflected on here.

Can I invite comments from this group on this please? I'm no PC
"boffin" and neither am I a numpty but I'd like to know whether or
not I should defrag periodically.

Thanks.

I could maybe understand waste of time, but risky? Why would it be
risky?
For file fragmentation to noticeably effect performance, it would
have to be pretty severe. You might lose maybe mins in the course of
a year depending on usage and fragmentation. But you could lose
hours waiting around for defrag to finish, depending on how often you
run it. Or not a all, if you have it scheduled while you are away
from the computer.
My idea to keep fragmentation down, I moved all my temp files to a
1GB USB flash drive. It frees the hard drive from wasting time
seeking, reading and writing lot of tiny little empty files all over
the place on the hard drive.

"Unknown" wrote in message
...
Very wise! But, what specifically do you mean by Compact OE?


In Outlook Express (OE) go to File Folders Compact All Folders

Using a separate partition on the original or a secomd internal hard drive would realise greater benefits.

A separate partition would just thrash the hard drive more with longer seek
movements. A 2nd hard drive is a better idea.

In article ,
says...
For file fragmentation to noticeably effect performance, it would have to
be pretty severe. You might lose maybe mins in the course of a year
depending on usage and fragmentation. But you could lose hours waiting
around for defrag to finish, depending on how often you run it. Or not a
all, if you have it scheduled while you are away from the computer.


I've seen a database server, used for a commercial website to allow
vendors to track orders (auto industry) where queries failed on a
routing basis, using an Oracle DB, because of fragmentation. Once the
defrag was done, and schedule for monthly running, the server responded
like new to queries - the only change was that it was defragged.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
(remove 999 for proper email address)

That is not necessary and should not be done if you normally delete old mail
from inbox, sent, and deleted boxes.
If however you keep your mail in those boxes and have a huge amount, then,
to make more space you can compact.

"TVeblen" wrote in message
...

"Unknown" wrote in message
...
Very wise! But, what specifically do you mean by Compact OE?


In Outlook Express (OE) go to File Folders Compact All Folders

Unknown

Do the size of your dbx files reduce when you delete old mal and do not
compacting?


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Unknown wrote:
That is not necessary and should not be done if you normally delete
old mail from inbox, sent, and deleted boxes.
If however you keep your mail in those boxes and have a huge amount,
then, to make more space you can compact.

"TVeblen" wrote in message
...

"Unknown" wrote in message
...
Very wise! But, what specifically do you mean by Compact OE?


In Outlook Express (OE) go to File Folders Compact All Folders

Thanks for drawing my attention to the thread.


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


SC Tom wrote:
Gerry,
He's got all that covered. Read this:

http://groups.google.com/group/micro...ce704b8?hl=en#

SC Tom

"Gerry" wrote in message
...
Tae Song

Read / writes access times are to my understanding noticeably slower
over USB connections slower than to an internal drive. Any benefits
of segregation are negated by your choice of how to segregate. Using
a separate partition on the original or a secomd internal hard drive
would realise greater benefits.


--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tae Song wrote:
"Keith Wilby" wrote in message
...
If you read up on defragging on another NG
(comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage) you'll find that the general
consensus is that defragging is risky and a waste of time. That
sentiment doesn't appear to be reflected on here.

Can I invite comments from this group on this please? I'm no PC
"boffin" and neither am I a numpty but I'd like to know whether or
not I should defrag periodically.

Thanks.

I could maybe understand waste of time, but risky? Why would it be
risky?
For file fragmentation to noticeably effect performance, it would
have to be pretty severe. You might lose maybe mins in the course
of a year depending on usage and fragmentation. But you could lose
hours waiting around for defrag to finish, depending on how often
you run it. Or not a all, if you have it scheduled while you are
away from the computer.
My idea to keep fragmentation down, I moved all my temp files to a
1GB USB flash drive. It frees the hard drive from wasting time
seeking, reading and writing lot of tiny little empty files all over
the place on the hard drive.

I can answer that for him. The answer is, no, they don't. (and that
behavior is typical for databases (like Access, Dbase, etc); and that's why
most have a compaction option (compaction, not compression, per se)

Unknown: it's simple to check it out, if you compare the before and after
file sizes of the appropriate dbx file (after you have simply deleted a
bunch of emails). If you've never run the compaction routine, the
difference in size can be staggering.

Gerry wrote:
Unknown

Do the size of your dbx files reduce when you delete old mal and do not
compacting?


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Unknown wrote:
That is not necessary and should not be done if you normally delete
old mail from inbox, sent, and deleted boxes.
If however you keep your mail in those boxes and have a huge amount,
then, to make more space you can compact.

"TVeblen" wrote in message
...

"Unknown" wrote in message
...
Very wise! But, what specifically do you mean by Compact OE?


In Outlook Express (OE) go to File Folders Compact All Folders

Bill

Compaction removes redundant data within a file. File compression
rewrites the data remaining in simpler way requiring less space.

Quote

"What Does Compacting Messages Mean, and What Happens?

When you delete an email in Outlook Express, it is moved to the Deleted
Items folder. The message disappears from its original folder, and when
you empty the trash, it disappears from there, too.

In neither case is the message removed from the file on your disk
immediately, however. Editing files for this is a slow process, and
you'd have to wait or experience Outlook Express responding slowly
whenever you deleted a couple of emails. This is why deletion merely
hides the messages from view.

Of course, having all your deleted messages still on disk means a lot of
space that can be reclaimed is wasted over time, and if Outlook Express
has to keep track of too many obsolete messages this itself can mean a
slowdown of certain actions.

So Outlook Express tries to remove these deleted emails physically from
time to time. This it calls "compacting". Every 100 times you close
Outlook Express, you are asked to start that process."
Source:
http://email.about.com/od/outlookexp...compact_oe.htm



--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Bill in Co. wrote:
I can answer that for him. The answer is, no, they don't. (and
that behavior is typical for databases (like Access, Dbase, etc); and
that's why most have a compaction option (compaction, not
compression, per se)
Unknown: it's simple to check it out, if you compare the before and
after file sizes of the appropriate dbx file (after you have simply
deleted a bunch of emails). If you've never run the compaction
routine, the difference in size can be staggering.

Gerry wrote:
Unknown

Do the size of your dbx files reduce when you delete old mal and do
not compacting?


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Unknown wrote:
That is not necessary and should not be done if you normally delete
old mail from inbox, sent, and deleted boxes.
If however you keep your mail in those boxes and have a huge amount,
then, to make more space you can compact.

"TVeblen" wrote in message
...

"Unknown" wrote in message
...
Very wise! But, what specifically do you mean by Compact OE?


In Outlook Express (OE) go to File Folders Compact All Folders

Well, in the case of OE, it is "compaction", not "compression", per se, in
the sense that the latter ("file compression") implies that some compression
algorithms are being used to reduce the file's size, and that's not really
the case here. In other words, as an, this is NOT the same as what JPGs
are in comparison to BMPs; THAT is a case of file "compression", per se.


Gerry wrote:
Bill

Compaction removes redundant data within a file. File compression
rewrites the data remaining in simpler way requiring less space.

Quote

"What Does Compacting Messages Mean, and What Happens?

When you delete an email in Outlook Express, it is moved to the Deleted
Items folder. The message disappears from its original folder, and when
you empty the trash, it disappears from there, too.

In neither case is the message removed from the file on your disk
immediately, however. Editing files for this is a slow process, and
you'd have to wait or experience Outlook Express responding slowly
whenever you deleted a couple of emails. This is why deletion merely
hides the messages from view.

Of course, having all your deleted messages still on disk means a lot of
space that can be reclaimed is wasted over time, and if Outlook Express
has to keep track of too many obsolete messages this itself can mean a
slowdown of certain actions.

So Outlook Express tries to remove these deleted emails physically from
time to time. This it calls "compacting". Every 100 times you close
Outlook Express, you are asked to start that process."
Source:
http://email.about.com/od/outlookexp...compact_oe.htm



--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Bill in Co. wrote:
I can answer that for him. The answer is, no, they don't. (and
that behavior is typical for databases (like Access, Dbase, etc); and
that's why most have a compaction option (compaction, not
compression, per se)
Unknown: it's simple to check it out, if you compare the before and
after file sizes of the appropriate dbx file (after you have simply
deleted a bunch of emails). If you've never run the compaction
routine, the difference in size can be staggering.

Gerry wrote:
Unknown

Do the size of your dbx files reduce when you delete old mal and do
not compacting?


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Unknown wrote:
That is not necessary and should not be done if you normally delete
old mail from inbox, sent, and deleted boxes.
If however you keep your mail in those boxes and have a huge amount,
then, to make more space you can compact.

"TVeblen" wrote in message
...

"Unknown" wrote in message
...
Very wise! But, what specifically do you mean by Compact OE?


In Outlook Express (OE) go to File Folders Compact All Folders