Which defrag?

"Modem Ani" wrote in message ...
Are you looking for a reference about whether XP performs partial defrags in
the background or whether these partial defrags were designed with "best
bang for the buck"?

If you're asking about partial defragmentation, information on this abounds.
For example, this from TechNet: "Once every three days, by default, Windows
XP will perform a partial defragmentation and adjust the layout of the disk
based upon current use."
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...te/xpperf.mspx

If you're asking about "best bang for the buck" - sorry, while I have read
that more than once I can't remember a specific reference right now.

Some more info is presented down the page at:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...benchmark.mspx

You can actually see the results via something like SysInternals DiskView,
which is just below this link:
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/so....shtml#diskext

Sometime after running an O&O complete by name defreg/optimization,
XP did its thing on my drive. I didn't check them all, but it appears that
the files listed in my layout.ini were moved to a contiguous block which is
approx 80% of the way into my volume and sits alone, the last thing on
the volume. Visually speaking that is. According to MS that should be
closer to the outer edge of the disk, but that still doesn't smell right to me.

The former, thanks.

Cheers,

Cliff

Modem Ani wrote:
Are you looking for a reference about whether XP performs partial defrags in
the background or whether these partial defrags were designed with "best
bang for the buck"?

If you're asking about partial defragmentation, information on this abounds.
For example, this from TechNet: "Once every three days, by default, Windows
XP will perform a partial defragmentation and adjust the layout of the disk
based upon current use."
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...te/xpperf.mspx

If you're asking about "best bang for the buck" - sorry, while I have read
that more than once I can't remember a specific reference right now.

Modem Ani

"Enkidu" wrote in message
...

Modem Ani wrote:

Many users do not seem to realize that XP performs

partial defrags in the background, and that the design
of these defrags - as I understand it - was well
thought-out to get the best bang for the buck.

That's interesting! Got a reference for that?

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com






--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:36:43 -0500, "User N"
wrote:
snip
Some more info is presented down the page at:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...benchmark.mspx

You can actually see the results via something like SysInternals DiskView,
which is just below this link:
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/so....shtml#diskext

Sometime after running an O&O complete by name defreg/optimization,
XP did its thing on my drive. I didn't check them all, but it appears that
the files listed in my layout.ini were moved to a contiguous block which is
approx 80% of the way into my volume and sits alone, the last thing on
the volume. Visually speaking that is. According to MS that should be
closer to the outer edge of the disk, but that still doesn't smell right to me.
Thanks for the pointer to diskview, never seen it before.

I have also seen the layout.ini files moved towards the end of the
volume. Seems to defeat the performance gain, but it might be
argued that at least the necessary files are still contiguous and that
this gives some advantage.

I read somewhere that the reason for this placement is that the
process looks for an existing free area big enough to hold the files;
it doesn't move other files out of the way (from the outer edge,
for example) to make space for them.
Dave

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:13:03 -0800, "Ken Gardner"
wrote:

PerfectDisk

Hello Ken.... In my last post I said that I wish they had provided a
PDF manual with the program. Today I found the link where just that
is available. A well thought out, well written 173 page technical
manual. These people continue to impress me. Most software venders
hire some 50 cent/hour 3rd world illiterate to scratch out their 6
page pamphlets they call manuals.

Unlike today's run of the mill software venders, I think these people
have more than two brain cells banging together which puts them heads
above the norm. I haven't had any need to try their support but if it
in the same class as their software and technical manuals, then I
wouldn't be surprised if they have what is called "REAL" technical
Support by "REAL" people that engage "REAL" brains to solve "REAL"
problems in the same language that the caller is speaking in.

Regards,
DW

This "partial defrag" only occurs if the system is "idle" at the time that
it runs and only if there is a sufficiently large enough piece of contiguous
free space for the files indicated in layout.ini to be moved into. If both
of the conditions are not met, then this "partial defrag" doesn't get
performed.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.


"Modem Ani" wrote in message
...
Are you looking for a reference about whether XP performs partial defrags
in
the background or whether these partial defrags were designed with "best
bang for the buck"?

If you're asking about partial defragmentation, information on this
abounds.
For example, this from TechNet: "Once every three days, by default,
Windows
XP will perform a partial defragmentation and adjust the layout of the
disk
based upon current use."
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...te/xpperf.mspx

If you're asking about "best bang for the buck" - sorry, while I have read
that more than once I can't remember a specific reference right now.

Modem Ani

"Enkidu" wrote in message
...
Modem Ani wrote:

Many users do not seem to realize that XP performs
partial defrags in the background, and that the design
of these defrags - as I understand it - was well
thought-out to get the best bang for the buck.

That's interesting! Got a reference for that?

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

Ken,

The problem with Diskeeper's Performance measurement is that it is measuring
read only performance - which isn't a reflection of how drives are used

An interesting study by one of the original developers of NTFS on free space
consolidation and how NOT doing it can actually result in wasted disk seeks
and actually make drive performance worse -
http://www.raxco.com/products/perfec...WhitePaper.pdf

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.

"Ken Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Enkidu" wrote:

There very few independant studies. Search for
defragmentation on the web and you there is almost no hard
evidence. There's plenty of references to Microsoft
documents which talk about defragmentation and how it works,
but little evidence that quantifies the possible
improvements. Which are likely to be different for database
servers or web servers or workstations or home machines.

These points are sources of constant frustration that I have with most
so-called performance enhancing software, including but not limited to
defraggers. Intellectually I am perfectly capable of understanding that
other things being equal, a defragmented hard drive will out-perform a
fragmented hard drive. But are we talking here about seconds, tenths of
seconds, or milliseconds?

My own personal experience, which is as a workstation user, is that a
regularly defragmented hard drive can save you seconds rather than
milliseconds in disk drive operations, i.e. you can actually notice the
difference. However, I cannot notice any transparent difference between
defragging a hard drive using the XP built-in defragger and defragging
using
a third party program such as Diskeeper or PerfectDisk. Of these
programs,
only Diskeeper even attempts to measure the performance improvement you
might
gain, but it does so in terms of percentages rather than actual time. If
it
takes ten milliseconds to load a file when it used to take five
milliseconds,
that may be a 50% improvement but no human being will ever notice it. If,
instead, we are taking about tenths of seconds, then the improvement will
be
noticable.

Ken




There was a need for defragmentation back in the early days
of Windows with small, slow disks on FAT16 filesystems. I'm
not convinced there's a need when we have large, fast disks
and NTFS filesystems. Not to mention large amounts of RAM.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

I give Raxco great credit for 'telling it like it is' on their web site:

"Myth 5 - We are going to use the built-in Windows defragmentation utility.

If you are working at home on a single workstation, this is probably all you
need. The built-in
defragmentation utility is woefully inadequate for enterprise use."

http://www.raxco.com/products/perfec...g_tutorial.pdf
[Page 7]

PerfectDisk and similar products have their place in an enterprise setting.
For the majority of home users, even with a home network, Windows' own
defragger is completely adequate, unless you're running a web server. It's
taken a home user longer to read this post than the amount of time that will
be saved over the lifetime of their computer by running an enterprise
defragger on their system.

Modem Ani

"Greg Hayes/Raxco Software" wrote in message
...
This "partial defrag" only occurs if the system is "idle" at the time that
it runs and only if there is a sufficiently large enough piece of
contiguous
free space for the files indicated in layout.ini to be moved into. If
both
of the conditions are not met, then this "partial defrag" doesn't get
performed.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.


"Modem Ani" wrote in message
...
Are you looking for a reference about whether XP performs partial
defrags
in
the background or whether these partial defrags were designed with "best
bang for the buck"?

If you're asking about partial defragmentation, information on this
abounds.
For example, this from TechNet: "Once every three days, by default,
Windows
XP will perform a partial defragmentation and adjust the layout of the
disk
based upon current use."

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...te/xpperf.mspx

If you're asking about "best bang for the buck" - sorry, while I have
read
that more than once I can't remember a specific reference right now.

Modem Ani

"Enkidu" wrote in message
...
Modem Ani wrote:

Many users do not seem to realize that XP performs
partial defrags in the background, and that the design
of these defrags - as I understand it - was well
thought-out to get the best bang for the buck.

That's interesting! Got a reference for that?

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

Yes the Windows defrag is sufficient for home users but the other
defrag programs have nice features like being able to do a defrag at
startup and automatic scheduled defrags. Since you’re running defrag
before Windows start, the MFT and page file can be defragged as well.


"Modem Ani" wrote:
I give Raxco great credit for ’telling it like it is’ on
their web site:

"Myth 5 - We are going to use the built-in Windows defragmentation
utility.

If you are working at home on a single workstation, this is probably
all you
need. The built-in
defragmentation utility is woefully inadequate for enterprise use."

http://www.raxco.com/products/perfec...g_tutorial.pdf
[Page 7]

PerfectDisk and similar products have their place in an enterprise
setting.
For the majority of home users, even with a home network,
Windows’ own
defragger is completely adequate, unless you’re running a web
server. It’s
taken a home user longer to read this post than the amount of time
that will
be saved over the lifetime of their computer by running an enterprise
defragger on their system.

Modem Ani


--
Posted using the http://www.windowsforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.windowsforumz.com/Help---...ict350114.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.windowsforumz.com/eform.php?p=1139557

1badtech wrote:
Yes the Windows defrag is sufficient for home users but the other
defrag programs have nice features like being able to do a defrag at
startup and automatic scheduled defrags. Since you’re running defrag
before Windows start, the MFT and page file can be defragged as well.

Schedule Defrag of all Drives:
http://www.dougknox.com/utility/scri...defrag_all.htm

--
- Shenan -
--
The information is provided "as is", it is suggested you research for
yourself before you take any advice - you are the one ultimately
responsible for your actions/problems/solutions. Know what you are
getting into before you jump in with both feet.

And how much faster does your system perform because of these features?

Look, I have no problem if people want to use a third party defragger on a
home system, even on a home network. I think they're a waste of time and
money. But so what - that's just my opinion.

My beef is with the people who sell these things and tell you that if you
don't use a third party app, you're losing out on something valuable or even
necessary.

To give an analogy to my way of thinking on this matter: You want to get the
paint protection on that new car? OK, if that's what you want. Just don't
let a salesperson tell you that it'll make the paint look better.

Modem Ani

"1badtech" wrote in message
news:3_1139557_d1f97f890bb62f39cba64b3b6f6645b4@wi ndowsforumz.com...
Yes the Windows defrag is sufficient for home users but the other
defrag programs have nice features like being able to do a defrag at
startup and automatic scheduled defrags. Since you’re running defrag
before Windows start, the MFT and page file can be defragged as well.


"Modem Ani" wrote:
I give Raxco great credit for ’telling it like it is’ on
their web site:

"Myth 5 - We are going to use the built-in Windows defragmentation
utility.

If you are working at home on a single workstation, this is probably
all you
need. The built-in
defragmentation utility is woefully inadequate for enterprise use."


http://www.raxco.com/products/perfec...g_tutorial.pdf
[Page 7]

PerfectDisk and similar products have their place in an enterprise
setting.
For the majority of home users, even with a home network,
Windows’ own
defragger is completely adequate, unless you’re running a web
server. It’s
taken a home user longer to read this post than the amount of time
that will
be saved over the lifetime of their computer by running an enterprise
defragger on their system.

Modem Ani


--
Posted using the http://www.windowsforumz.com interface, at author's
request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL:
http://www.windowsforumz.com/Help---...ict350114.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse:
http://www.windowsforumz.com/eform.php?p=1139557

I myself try not to load third party software as much as I can avoid
it, Windows already has a lot of problem on its own. I’m not trying
to sell anything here, I’m simply saying that Windows defrag takes a
long time and is a manual process that most people either ignore or
forget to do. That’s why I suggested a third party defrag program
where you can schedule an automatic defrag and runs a lot faster.

It’s not a question of how much faster your system perform, it’s how
long does it take the built-in defrag to run versus a third party
defrag.

"Modem Ani" wrote:
And how much faster does your system perform because of these
features?

Look, I have no problem if people want to use a third party defragger
on a
home system, even on a home network. I think they’re a waste of
time and
money. But so what - that’s just my opinion.

My beef is with the people who sell these things and tell you that if
you
don’t use a third party app, you’re losing out on
something valuable or even
necessary.

To give an analogy to my way of thinking on this matter: You want to
get the
paint protection on that new car? OK, if that’s what you want.
Just don’t
let a salesperson tell you that it’ll make the paint look
better.

Modem Ani