If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I may have posted this before
On 4/3/12 2:58 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
I believe so. But what does that have to do with it? Unless you remove the existing FAT or NTFS or whatever file allocation table or directory you're not going to get a defragmented drive, since ith those tables still intact, the OS simply ooks for the next available cluster space to store the next cluster, and nothing more. When you delete/empty the trash can, the allocation tables should indicate those areas are now empty, and the space on the hard drive can be used. Way back in DOS days, DOS simply replaced the first letter of the filename with a character, I can't remember which one. The data was not actually deleted from the drive. So, if you accidentally erased/deleted a file, you could take a byte/sector editor, look in the FAT, change the character back to the correct letter, and your file was miraculously recovered. :-) -- Ken Mac OS X 10.6.8 Firefox 11.0 Thunderbird 11.0.1 LibreOffice 3.5.0 rc3 |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
I may have posted this before
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:51:17 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote: On 4/3/12 2:29 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:14:11 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: On 4/3/12 1:44 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:38:08 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: Why not leave your computers on overnight, once a week, and schedule a defrag while you sleep? I suppose the obvious question is, what benefit do you expect to notice as a result? It's simply automated, you don't have to do anything manually. I just picked overnight as a time frame when most people aren't likely to be using the computer for anything else. That leaves the computer with just that single task, assuming no other tasks, automatic updates for example, are also scheduled. My point was that defragmenting a drive doesn't carry any obvious benefits, at least as far as I can see. I would have had a different opinion 15-20 years ago, but not today. I'd postulate the benefits are the same, but with today's computers, which are much faster, you simply don't notice them. :-) At the point where I no longer notice it, it's no longer a benefit. :-) Although..... if you have huge files, you might. But, as I work mostly with old computers, having those files defragged can definitely be noticeable. I only work with older computers long enough to get them running and then donated. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I may have posted this before
Ken Springer wrote:
On 4/3/12 2:58 PM, Bill in Co wrote: I believe so. But what does that have to do with it? Unless you remove the existing FAT or NTFS or whatever file allocation table or directory you're not going to get a defragmented drive, since ith those tables still intact, the OS simply ooks for the next available cluster space to store the next cluster, and nothing more. When you delete/empty the trash can, the allocation tables should indicate those areas are now empty, and the space on the hard drive can be used. That seems pretty logical, so maybe my memory is off. I guess we could do a simple test. Take a floppy disc, fill it with several files, erase it using erase *.*, then copy some new files back over to it, and see if it is fragmented or not. Way back in DOS days, DOS simply replaced the first letter of the filename with a character, I can't remember which one. The data was not actually deleted from the drive. So, if you accidentally erased/deleted a file, you could take a byte/sector editor, look in the FAT, change the character back to the correct letter, and your file was miraculously recovered. :-) I remember that. :-) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I may have posted this before
On 4/3/12 3:17 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:51:17 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: On 4/3/12 2:29 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:14:11 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: On 4/3/12 1:44 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:38:08 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: Why not leave your computers on overnight, once a week, and schedule a defrag while you sleep? I suppose the obvious question is, what benefit do you expect to notice as a result? It's simply automated, you don't have to do anything manually. I just picked overnight as a time frame when most people aren't likely to be using the computer for anything else. That leaves the computer with just that single task, assuming no other tasks, automatic updates for example, are also scheduled. My point was that defragmenting a drive doesn't carry any obvious benefits, at least as far as I can see. I would have had a different opinion 15-20 years ago, but not today. I'd postulate the benefits are the same, but with today's computers, which are much faster, you simply don't notice them. :-) At the point where I no longer notice it, it's no longer a benefit. :-) LOL Although..... if you have huge files, you might. But, as I work mostly with old computers, having those files defragged can definitely be noticeable. I only work with older computers long enough to get them running and then donated. I go a little further, as I try to assemble complete systems, minimum of tower, monitor, keyboard, and mouse. If I've got something else handy, such as speakers, I'll toss those in. Maybe swap out the CD Rom for a CD burner or DVD player/burner, or simply add a 2nd optical player. It just depends on what I have hanging around. And, I assume the recipient is a newbie. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.6.8 Firefox 11.0 Thunderbird 11.0.1 LibreOffice 3.5.0 rc3 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I may have posted this before
On 4/3/12 3:41 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
Ken Springer wrote: On 4/3/12 2:58 PM, Bill in Co wrote: I believe so. But what does that have to do with it? Unless you remove the existing FAT or NTFS or whatever file allocation table or directory you're not going to get a defragmented drive, since ith those tables still intact, the OS simply ooks for the next available cluster space to store the next cluster, and nothing more. When you delete/empty the trash can, the allocation tables should indicate those areas are now empty, and the space on the hard drive can be used. That seems pretty logical, so maybe my memory is off. I guess we could do a simple test. Take a floppy disc, fill it with several files, erase it using erase *.*, then copy some new files back over to it, and see if it is fragmented or not. I don't have anything installed at the moment like the Auslogic program. After a number of questionable actions by yours truly, I'm in the midst of rebuilding my multiboot computer, and at the moment, my new to me Win 7 computer is bare bones as it came from HP. What we should probably do is coordinate tests by both of us, using the same OS, same defrag program, etc. Maybe, even the same file(s). It could be an interesting experiment. Way back in DOS days, DOS simply replaced the first letter of the filename with a character, I can't remember which one. The data was not actually deleted from the drive. So, if you accidentally erased/deleted a file, you could take a byte/sector editor, look in the FAT, change the character back to the correct letter, and your file was miraculously recovered. :-) I remember that. :-) -- Ken Mac OS X 10.6.8 Firefox 11.0 Thunderbird 11.0.1 LibreOffice 3.5.0 rc3 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I may have posted this before
"Ken Springer" wrote in message ... On 4/3/12 1:44 PM, Bill in Co wrote: I want to clear up something. AFAIK, even if the destination drive has been "erased", that is insufficient (meaning - if you copy files to it, they will still end up fragmented on the drive). It has to be freshly formatted (not simply erased, per se), which eliminates the existing file system allocation map. Let me ask.... Was the recycle bin empty when you did your testing? I emptied the RB in my test before doing the last copying to C:. I should have checked if the new 7 fragments occupied the same sectors as the original 7 fragments, but I didn't. -- SC Tom |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I may have posted this before
Ken Springer wrote:
On 4/3/12 3:41 PM, Bill in Co wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 4/3/12 2:58 PM, Bill in Co wrote: I believe so. But what does that have to do with it? Unless you remove the existing FAT or NTFS or whatever file allocation table or directory you're not going to get a defragmented drive, since ith those tables still intact, the OS simply ooks for the next available cluster space to store the next cluster, and nothing more. When you delete/empty the trash can, the allocation tables should indicate those areas are now empty, and the space on the hard drive can be used. That seems pretty logical, so maybe my memory is off. I guess we could do a simple test. Take a floppy disc, fill it with several files, erase it using erase *.*, then copy some new files back over to it, and see if it is fragmented or not. I don't have anything installed at the moment like the Auslogic program. After a number of questionable actions by yours truly, I'm in the midst of rebuilding my multiboot computer, and at the moment, my new to me Win 7 computer is bare bones as it came from HP. What we should probably do is coordinate tests by both of us, using the same OS, same defrag program, etc. Maybe, even the same file(s). It could be an interesting experiment. Way back in DOS days, DOS simply replaced the first letter of the filename with a character, I can't remember which one. The data was not actually deleted from the drive. So, if you accidentally erased/deleted a file, you could take a byte/sector editor, look in the FAT, change the character back to the correct letter, and your file was miraculously recovered. :-) I remember that. :-) Well, you're right, and my memory was off, Ken (and not the first time :-). If you take a floppy and do the *.* erase, it seems to work just as well as formatting does - in terms of the fragmentation. I guess it only makes sense, in retrospect! So as long as you're able to completely erase the target disk first, you're good to go (in terms of fragmentation). If you can't do that, you'll probably have to resort to either running defrag, or using the "image and restore image" method, to get a completely defragged outcome (if wanted). |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|