How Often Disk Defrag

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:04:10 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Stefan Patric wrote:


You've missed the whole point. I AM talking about regular, periodic
maintenance, i.e. defragging, just ONLY when it's needed,

Yet, as shown here, NO ONE knows just when a defrag's cost will result
in a savings (wear, electricity, or by whatever measurement) over
continuing to access fragmented files. Saying that you know when to

Who said anything about cost? I just made the simple statement that the
more you defrag, the more wear and tear you inflict on the hard drive.

defrag is no more steeped in science or proof than someone who admits
they don't know and just goes ahead to schedule the defrag anyway. You
don't know "when it's needed". You just wait until the percentage of
fragmentation gets above some arbitrary threshold upon which you've
chosen (by the way, some defraggers can "schedule" themself to defrag
when fragmentation gets above some threshold, again, arbitrarily chosen
by the user). The other user admits they don't know "when it's needed"
so figure they'll just run it or schedule it at short intervals since
they don't perceive the added wear (which may not exceed the added wear
to access fragmented files) as a risk to the survival of their device.

I let the defragger tell me when to defrag. If it says to, I do. Most
times not immediately, but within a few hours or few days.

When I analyze a drive is subjective based on experience: use the system
a lot; install/delete software; save/load lots of files, etc.; anaylze
more frequently. Less use, etc., analyze less. But, in any case, at
least once a month, I check.

Your measure is just as arbitrary and not based on valid premises as is
someone else making an arbitrary choice of when to schedule a defrag.

I've been told by those who deal with system performance for a living,
that hard drive performance, in general, at least with NTFS, takes a hit
with as little as 10% fragmentation, and definitely becomes a problem
when over 20%, which this link seems to verify:

http://www.condusiv.com/disk-defrag/...tation-impact/


[snip]

Why do you think defraggers have an analyzer tool separate from the
defragging part? It's there so the user can test the drive for the
degree of fragmentation, and decide if they want to defrag.

As I stated, showing the level of current fragmentation does not
indicate how long you get an ROI on wear for defragging those files. You
will add more disk wear with the defrag (several small ones or a few big
ones) but at some point you are hoping that the saved wear from
accessing defragmented files exceeds the wear by the defrag and
accessing fragmented files. Showing the current level of fragmentation
gives you no usable information to know when that ROI point will be met.

I agree.

I gave up a long time ago on using the percentage of fragmentation or
[snip]

The level of fragmentation (percentage or fragment count) really doesn't
provide you a decent gauge to figure out when you should defrag.

Optimum defragging is a balancing act based on how the system is used.
Using percent fragmentation is not the best (or only) criteria, but as
far as reading, loading and saving files (and applications), which is
what most users do most of the time, it's a simple one, easily
determined, that is adequate most of the time.

The more the drive head moves, the more wear and tear. The more you
defrag, the more the head moves. Even if the defragging takes less
time, because there's less fragmentation, the head still has to move
numerous times to accomplish the defragging whether there are a few
fragmented files or many. It's not like the software "know" innately
which files are fragmented, and only works on those files. It has to
read all the files each time you defrag.

Geez, what defragger do you use? The ones that I use do a scan before

I use the one provided by Microsoft.

And I was referring to the initial scan, not the defragging operation
itself. I said it badly. That last sentence should have said "...files'
info..." which is not always a quick operation depending on how big the
Master File Table is and how much of the file info needed is resident.

defrag so they can build up a list of eligible files for the type of
defrag operation that you choose to run. If you use the same defrag
algorithm each time, it shouldn't be moving all files but just the ones
that are fragmented (and perhaps have more fragments than a threshold
you configure in the defragger, if an available option). The only
non-fragmented files that should get moved are to make room, say, for
the MFT reserve area or pagefile.

Whether only fragmented files, and not contiguous files, are moved, even
if you're defragging daily, really depends on a lot of things, most
importantly, the defrag algorithm. For example, is it set to make
contiguous everything, except system areas, of course, from as close as
possible to the beginning of the drive? That is, to leave no empty gaps
between files. This will maximize reads and saves, yes, but it's the
major cause of file fragmentation.

Microsoft needs to release a new, more efficient and SMARTER file system
that's less prone to fragmentation. Other OSes have them. Why not
Windows?


Stef

In message , Stefan Patric
writes:
[]
Who said anything about cost? I just made the simple statement that the
more you defrag, the more wear and tear you inflict on the hard drive.
[]
Obviously, defragging causes more wear and tear than not defragging -
all else being equal. But accessing the (fragmented) files also causes
wear - more so than if they weren't fragmented; at what point the one
exceeds the other is what some of this discussion is about.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Personally, I don't like the Senate idea, I don't like the idea of having to
elect another bunch of overpaid incompetents. I don't like the idea of having
wholesale appointments by the PM of the day for domination of the second
chamber. I like anachronism. I like the idea of a bunch of unelected congenital
idiots getting in the way of a bunch of conmen. - Charles F. Hankel, 1998-3-19.

On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 5:09 AM, Karen F wrote:
How often should you use Disk Defrag? I now have mine set for once a
month. Thanks.
The short answer is only as often as you really need to.
Start the defrag app and do an analyze.
If it says you should, then maybe you should if is really badly
fragmented. Otherwise it is just a waste of time and HDD exercising.

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:50:57 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , Stefan Patric
writes:
[]
Who said anything about cost? I just made the simple statement that the
more you defrag, the more wear and tear you inflict on the hard drive.
[]
Obviously, defragging causes more wear and tear than not defragging -
all else being equal. But accessing the (fragmented) files also causes
wear - more so than if they weren't fragmented; at what point the one
exceeds the other is what some of this discussion is about.

And my answer for the optimum "point" is when the defragger says it's
needed. But many disagreed, and preferred a regular schedule, whether
the drive "needed" defragging or not.

Of course, if my solution is the correct one, that presents another
quandry: How frequently do you analyze? ;-)

Stef

On 3/17/2012 11:59 AM, Stefan Patric wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:50:57 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In , Stefan Patric
writes:
[]
Who said anything about cost? I just made the simple statement that the
more you defrag, the more wear and tear you inflict on the hard drive.
[]
Obviously, defragging causes more wear and tear than not defragging -
all else being equal. But accessing the (fragmented) files also causes
wear - more so than if they weren't fragmented; at what point the one
exceeds the other is what some of this discussion is about.

And my answer for the optimum "point" is when the defragger says it's
needed. But many disagreed, and preferred a regular schedule, whether
the drive "needed" defragging or not.

Of course, if my solution is the correct one, that presents another
quandry: How frequently do you analyze? ;-)

Stef

Look up "defrag" in Help and Support, select item #3, and read it.

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:37:09 -0500, Bob I wrote:

On 3/17/2012 11:59 AM, Stefan Patric wrote:

And my answer for the optimum "point" is when the defragger says it's
needed. But many disagreed, and preferred a regular schedule, whether
the drive "needed" defragging or not.

Of course, if my solution is the correct one, that presents another
quandry: How frequently do you analyze? ;-)

Stef

Look up "defrag" in Help and Support, select item #3, and read it.

Can't. No W7 system here to look that up on. I personally don't own
any. (I have my reasons.) And it will be several days before I'm even
near one to check. But I'll let you know if your advice was worthwhile.

Oh! And FWIW: I just noticed I spelled "quandary" wrong. ;-)

Stef

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 05:23:48 +0000, Stefan Patric wrote:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:37:09 -0500, Bob I wrote:

On 3/17/2012 11:59 AM, Stefan Patric wrote:

And my answer for the optimum "point" is when the defragger says it's
needed. But many disagreed, and preferred a regular schedule, whether
the drive "needed" defragging or not.

Of course, if my solution is the correct one, that presents another
quandry: How frequently do you analyze? ;-)

Stef

Look up "defrag" in Help and Support, select item #3, and read it.

Can't. No W7 system here to look that up on. I personally don't own
any. (I have my reasons.) And it will be several days before I'm even
near one to check. But I'll let you know if your advice was worthwhile.

Stef

To Bob I:

Item #3 -- svchost.exec? That really didn't answer the OP's question
"How Often Disk Defrag?" or mine as to the optimum point to defrag.
Unless by oblique implication you mean to run defrag as a permanent
background process as others have suggested. That's not the answer, just
a lazy "fix" for a poorly designed filesystem that's all too prone to
fragmentation.

However, Item #1 did answer the question, sort of. In Microsoft's own
words, paraphrased, When fragmentation reaches 10% or greater . . . .
But, of course, the time it takes to reach that level will vary from user
to user. So, the correct answer really is "When it's needed." What I,
and others, initially said.

So, in a roundabout way, your advice was worthwhile.

Stef

On 3/21/2012 2:28 PM, Stefan Patric wrote:
To Bob I:

Item #3 -- svchost.exec? That really didn't answer the OP's question
"How Often Disk Defrag?" or mine as to the optimum point to defrag.
Unless by oblique implication you mean to run defrag as a permanent
background process as others have suggested. That's not the answer, just
a lazy "fix" for a poorly designed filesystem that's all too prone to
fragmentation.

However, Item #1 did answer the question, sort of. In Microsoft's own
words, paraphrased, When fragmentation reaches 10% or greater . . . .
But, of course, the time it takes to reach that level will vary from user
to user. So, the correct answer really is "When it's needed." What I,
and others, initially said.

So, in a roundabout way, your advice was worthwhile.

Stef

I usually wait about two years before I defrag. And it is usually like
40 to 60% fragmented by then. And I check my boot times before and
after. And I gain about 2 seconds of shorter boot time after defragging.

Back in the 80's when MFM drives were common. Defragging would cut the
load time in half. Since IDE drives have come around, it just doesn't
help much. I believe the bottleneck isn't a fragmented drive, but the
slow I/O bus instead. There wouldn't be any need for drive buffers if
the bus could keep up.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 8 CP

On 3/21/2012 2:28 PM, Stefan Patric wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 05:23:48 +0000, Stefan Patric wrote:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:37:09 -0500, Bob I wrote:

On 3/17/2012 11:59 AM, Stefan Patric wrote:

And my answer for the optimum "point" is when the defragger says it's
needed. But many disagreed, and preferred a regular schedule, whether
the drive "needed" defragging or not.

Of course, if my solution is the correct one, that presents another
quandry: How frequently do you analyze? ;-)

Stef

Look up "defrag" in Help and Support, select item #3, and read it.

Can't. No W7 system here to look that up on. I personally don't own
any. (I have my reasons.) And it will be several days before I'm even
near one to check. But I'll let you know if your advice was worthwhile.

Stef

To Bob I:

Item #3 -- svchost.exec? That really didn't answer the OP's question
"How Often Disk Defrag?" or mine as to the optimum point to defrag.
Unless by oblique implication you mean to run defrag as a permanent
background process as others have suggested. That's not the answer, just
a lazy "fix" for a poorly designed filesystem that's all too prone to
fragmentation.

However, Item #1 did answer the question, sort of. In Microsoft's own
words, paraphrased, When fragmentation reaches 10% or greater . . . .
But, of course, the time it takes to reach that level will vary from user
to user. So, the correct answer really is "When it's needed." What I,
and others, initially said.

So, in a roundabout way, your advice was worthwhile.

Stef

Enable "online" "Help and Support" and then select entry #3

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:17:22 -0500, Bob I wrote:

On 3/21/2012 2:28 PM, Stefan Patric wrote:
[snip]

To Bob I:

Item #3 -- svchost.exec? That really didn't answer the OP's question
[snip]

Enable "online" "Help and Support" and then select entry #3

Why not just state the title of Item #3 and give a precis of the
content? Would save a lot of time.

Stef

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:08:20 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

On 3/21/2012 2:28 PM, Stefan Patric wrote:
To Bob I:

Item #3 -- svchost.exec? That really didn't answer the OP's question
"How Often Disk Defrag?" or mine as to the optimum point to defrag.
Unless by oblique implication you mean to run defrag as a permanent
background process as others have suggested. That's not the answer,
just a lazy "fix" for a poorly designed filesystem that's all too prone
to fragmentation.

However, Item #1 did answer the question, sort of. In Microsoft's own
words, paraphrased, When fragmentation reaches 10% or greater . . . .
But, of course, the time it takes to reach that level will vary from
user to user. So, the correct answer really is "When it's needed."
What I, and others, initially said.

So, in a roundabout way, your advice was worthwhile.

Stef

I usually wait about two years before I defrag. And it is usually like
40 to 60% fragmented by then. And I check my boot times before and
after. And I gain about 2 seconds of shorter boot time after defragging.

[snip]

Fragmentation is mostly in user data files more than anything else which
have little effect on boot times. On my systems, I usually have a
"small" System partition (C for system files and applications, etc.,
and a Data partition (or completely separate physical drive) where all
the users' directories and their files are located. The C: drive rarely
gets fragmented, since little is written there or changed once it's set
up. That way, no matter how fragmented the Date drive becomes, my boot
times are fairly consistent.

The major source of increased boot times (and RAM usage) are apps, after
installing, by default load stubs of themselves in RAM during boot up.
This is done so the app will load faster when clicked on. Personally, I
prefer having the extra RAM, and clean up that crap. Windows takes long
enough to boot without having that extra overhead.

Stef

On 3/22/2012 12:17 AM, Stefan Patric wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:17:22 -0500, Bob I wrote:

On 3/21/2012 2:28 PM, Stefan Patric wrote:
[snip]

To Bob I:

Item #3 -- svchost.exec? That really didn't answer the OP's question
[snip]

Enable "online" "Help and Support" and then select entry #3

Why not just state the title of Item #3 and give a precis of the
content? Would save a lot of time.

Stef

article in question

"Schedule Disk Defragmenter to run regularly"

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:38:17 -0500, Bob I wrote:

On 3/22/2012 12:17 AM, Stefan Patric wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:17:22 -0500, Bob I wrote:

On 3/21/2012 2:28 PM, Stefan Patric wrote:
[snip]

To Bob I:

Item #3 -- svchost.exec? That really didn't answer the OP's question
[snip]

Enable "online" "Help and Support" and then select entry #3

Why not just state the title of Item #3 and give a precis of the
content? Would save a lot of time.

Stef

article in question

"Schedule Disk Defragmenter to run regularly"

Okay. You mean this article:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/w...fragmenter-to-
run-regularly

I'm aware of it, and this "solution" has already been suggested, but it
doesn't really answer the OP's question of how often to defrag.

Microsoft itself recommends defragging when fragmentation is 10% or
greater. That would be the optimum time since it maintains performance
with the least number of defrags. Of course, how long a system takes to
reach that level varies from user to user. Now, if a "smart" defragger
existed that could be set to automatically defrag once a certain or
greater level of fragmentation was reached, and not before, then that
would be perfect. Just schedule it to run when it's convenient, and
forget it.

However, what would really be ideal is a new filesystem where performance
is less (or not at all) inexorably linked to fragmentation. NTFS with
all its faults has been around for 20 years after all. And from what
I've read unchanged since the release of Windows XP. How long has that
been? 10, 11 years! Time for a 21st century filesystem.

Stef

In message , Stefan Patric
writes:
[]
However, what would really be ideal is a new filesystem where performance
is less (or not at all) inexorably linked to fragmentation. NTFS with
[]
Unless you are talking of one which prevents fragmentation in the first
place, I don't see how it can be possible to have one where performance
isn't affected by fragmentation, to some extent at least.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Mr. Notlob, there's nothing wrong with you that an expensive operation can't
prolong!" - Monty Python

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
news
In message , Stefan Patric
writes:
[]
However, what would really be ideal is a new filesystem where
performance
is less (or not at all) inexorably linked to fragmentation. NTFS with
[]
Unless you are talking of one which prevents fragmentation in the
first place, I don't see how it can be possible to have one where
performance isn't affected by fragmentation, to some extent at least.

Is that so? How about the damn I/O bus can't handle the speed of even a
fragmented hard drive? Yes that is right! Do the stupid experiments and
you will find that a fragmented hard drive isn't the bottleneck. It is
the damn bus. I can't believe how clueless most people are! Seriously!
Does it *really* take an engineering degree to see this stuff or what?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows Live Mail 2009
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 8 CP