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 | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag
Stef wrote:
But defragging is an inconvienence at the very least. But with the transition to SSDs I guess fragmentation no longer matters and defragging no longer necessary. I thought this was the case too, but there's an explanation that says an SSD may be defragmented for performance reasons unrelated to "zero seek time". Someone discovered the SSD can be slow during copy-on-write, like during VSS snapshots. (That's where the filesystem is frozen so you can make a backup, and new writes to the filesystem are handled by VSS so they don't affect the snapshot.) https://www.hanselman.com/blog/TheRe...YourSS D.aspx "Windows does sometimes defragment SSDs, yes" "necessary due to slow volsnap copy-on-write" "If an SSD gets too fragmented you can hit maximum file fragmentation (when the metadata can’t represent any more file fragments) which will result in errors when you try to write/extend a file." I wasn't aware the $MFT extension mechanism has limits. But that article implies it does. When a single $MFT entry cannot hold any more LBA entries for the fragments in a file, a new entry in the $MFT (with the *same* filename) is created, and more LBA references are written in there. I've found a file on C: which was extended 30 times. And I don't know what controls that, or whether a record somewhere else references all the extensions (all 30 or more of them). Searching the entire $MFT linearly, looking for filenames doesn't make sense, so maybe they have another way of referencing the extensions made. Paul |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag
On 21/08/2017 18:13, Char Jackson claims ....
Fragmentation is not an inconvenience for me. The last time I manually defragged one of my own systems was at least 15 years ago. I don't even own any of those systems anymore. None of my current PCs have ever been manually defragged. If I check the fragmentation percentage, it's always around 2-3%, which I don't think anyone would consider to be a problem. Two things contribute to that, I think. Windows does a rudimentary defrag on a scheduled basis, and I don't use anything smaller than a 2TB drive (spinner) or a 512GB drive (SSD). With plenty of open drive space, there's very little opportunity for files to be fragmented. I'm guessing that you are *NOT* an 'everyday' computer user! Is that right? -- “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.” (Winston S. Churchill) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag
On 21/8/2017 10:16, Paul wrote:
Stef wrote: But defragging is an inconvienence at the very least. But with the transition to SSDs I guess fragmentation no longer matters and defragging no longer necessary. I thought this was the case too, but there's an explanation that says an SSD may be defragmented for performance reasons unrelated to "zero seek time". Someone discovered the SSD can be slow during copy-on-write, like during VSS snapshots. (That's where the filesystem is frozen so you can make a backup, and new writes to the filesystem are handled by VSS so they don't affect the snapshot.) https://www.hanselman.com/blog/TheRe...YourSS D.aspx "Windows does sometimes defragment SSDs, yes" "necessary due to slow volsnap copy-on-write" "If an SSD gets too fragmented you can hit maximum file fragmentation (when the metadata can˘t represent any more file fragments) which will result in errors when you try to write/extend a file." I wasn't aware the $MFT extension mechanism has limits. But that article implies it does. When a single $MFT entry cannot hold any more LBA entries for the fragments in a file, a new entry in the $MFT (with the *same* filename) is created, and more LBA references are written in there. I've found a file on C: which was extended 30 times. And I don't know what controls that, or whether a record somewhere else references all the extensions (all 30 or more of them). Searching the entire $MFT linearly, looking for filenames doesn't make sense, so maybe they have another way of referencing the extensions made. More reasons for a file system for Windows that doesn't require defragging. Thanks for that link. I'll read the article later. Stef |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag
On 21/8/2017 10:13, Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:25:44 +0000 (UTC), Stef wrote: But defragging is an inconvienence at the very least. Fragmentation is not an inconvenience for me. The last time I manually defragged one of my own systems was at least 15 years ago. I don't even own any of those systems anymore. None of my current PCs have ever been manually defragged. If I check the fragmentation percentage, it's always around 2-3%, which I don't think anyone would consider to be a problem. Then you're one of the lucky ones. And whether done manually or automatically, defragging still uses system resources, and if you happen to be using the system at the same time it will probably be sluggish. And if accessing the volume that is being defragged, you may not be able to, or it will be slow if you can, and there is the chance of a fault and you loose files, data or the partition gets corrupted. That's why if a defrag is in progress, I leave the system alone until it's done. Just to be safe. FWIW: I have a very leaned out XP SP3 install running in Virtualbox on a Linux host. It is used on a regular basis and is only connected to the Internet once or twice a year for maintenance. The 20GB virtual HD (11GB free) has never been defragged, manually or otherwise. Volume fragmentation as of Monday, the 21st is 5%. File 10%. But the type of work I do on it doesn't normally fragment files. Two things contribute to that, I think. Windows does a rudimentary defrag on a scheduled basis, and I don't use anything smaller than a 2TB drive (spinner) or a 512GB drive (SSD). With plenty of open drive space, there's very little opportunity for files to be fragmented. Yes, ample free space on the hard drive is an advantage. It also makes your volume fragmentation percentage lower. But with the transition to SSDs I guess fragmentation no longer matters and defragging no longer necessary. Manual defragging hasn't been necessary for well over a decade, but the background housekeeping that Windows does may apply to SSDs, after all. I think Paul recently quoted from an article that talked about that. But on Windows defragging is still necessary whether it's automatic or manual. And the whole point of this thread is that NTFS is OLD (25 years!) technology that is past due for replacement. MS did release ReFS to address NTFS' shortcomings, but ReFS still needs defragging just not as frequently -- as far as I can determine. But there are still millions of spinning drives out there, and will be for a long, long time. NTFS lacks the improvements of today's modern file systems particularly speed, reliability, and file integrity. Its basic design just does not permit those features to be added to it. Hence ReFS as a stop-gap "fix." It's time NTFS was replaced. Just consider the time wasted by HAVING to defrag to keep HD performance optimum and the real possibility of files being lost or damaged. Wouldn't it be better not to have to? I don't think we've had to for about 15 years. You mean manually? Just because you yourself aren't defragging doesn't mean it isn't being done and necessarily so. So, your statement is misleading. And if your system is turned off -- most people don't leave their machines running 24/7 -- when the defrag is scheduled, it doesn't get done. Until you've used a file system that doesn't need defragging, etc., you'll never realize the convienence. I feel like I'm at least 15 years ahead of you. ;-) How so? You're using a file system that's 25 years old and it shows. I guess if all you've ever driven is a '52 Buick, you don't know how much better a contemporary one is. ;-) I have what you want, I've had it for a very long time, and I wonder why you don't also have it. You're deluded. Amazingly so, I'm sorry to say. Stef |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag
On 8/20/2017 1:45 PM, Stef wrote:
On 18/8/2017 09:20, Paul wrote: Stef wrote: On 18/8/2017 01:25, Davidm wrote: On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:13:26 -0000 (UTC), wg_2002 wrote: On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:38:55 +0100, Martin Edwards wrote: My defragmenter played up yesterday, but it worked this morning. I have the icons for Disc Cleanup and Defragmenter on my desktop as I started with W7. I now have W10 which does not let you get at the programs. How will I get them if I get a new computer? Open file explorer and right click on your c: drive then click on properties at the bottom. Under the tools tab click optimize and that will bring up the defragmenter/trim gui. Doesn't W10 defrag in the background anyway, no need to run it manually? That's the default, but if your computer is turned off when defrag is scheduled to run . . . Isn't it about time MS released a filesystem that doesn't need defragging? Other OSes have them. NTFS is a quarter of a century old for god's sake! Even with all those patches installed over the years, its foundation is still ancient technology. Time to replace it with something better. Or enable Windows so it can use other filesystems. Stef I think the current design of Windows 10, handles the situation with intelligence. Regularly scheduled defrags keep the "percentage" number low. They have also added something (special handling) for certain problem files. And this seems to have been added on the later versions of Win10. But I have ways of creating a mess. My "100% fragmented" volume, a small volume by the way, was the result of doing a chromium build. And just for fun, I had the defrag.exe take a crack at that. Well, it needed a little help, because I wasn't meeting the minimum white space requirement. There was no place to move the files. In average usage, stuff like this doesn't happen. If I'd done the software build on a regular hard drive, with lots of slack, there would have been no issue at all. But I did the build on a RAMdisk which was barely big enough for the job. The fragmentation makes no difference to a RAMDisk, but I thought it would be fun to see whether the defragmenter utility could handle a pretty severe mess. Once I'd helped it out, it worked fine. But it couldn't get past the first bit. Its heuristic wasn't good enough. Microsoft has another file system. This is newer than NTFS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refs "In addition, Windows cannot be booted from a ReFS volume." So apparently, that's not what it is for. And I cannot tell from that article, whether fragmentation remains an issue or not. Ah! Yes. The Ol' Resilient File System. Read about it. Seems designed more for servers with RAID, multiple hard drives and partitions than single drive/single partition consumer machines. Rumored to be a future replacement for NTFS, but that was in 2012 when it was released with MS Server 2012, and as you said you can't boot the OS from it. So, you still need NTFS. So, NOT a replacement, but an addendum. And as far as defragging: In all the reading I've done no where is it explicitly stated that it doesn't need it. So I'll surmise it does just like NTFS. (Except on SSDs, of course) Because if it didn't, Microsoft would be shouting that fact from the highest roof tops all over the world. So, don't expect a full NTFS, no-defragging-needed, replacement file system any time soon. When or if it happens, it will be a day late and a dollar short. Such is the way of Microsoft. For now, you'll just have to be satisfied humming along in that utilitarian '52 Buick with the holes in the sides and Hydra-Matic transmission. ;-) Stef Hi Stef, Just to further your automotive knowledge, The 1952 Buick ran a DynaFlow transmission, It was so slow on acceleration that we called it a DipaFlow, The side holes where originaly engine compartment vents but where later plugged. From an old mechanic of the 50s and 60s, Now retired Power Egineer. :-) Regards, Rene |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag
Stef wrote:
there is the chance of a fault and you loose files, data or the partition gets corrupted. That's why if a defrag is in progress, I leave the system alone until it's done. Just to be safe. Actually, no. Microsoft provides an API specifically for defragmentation. It's also used in some cases, for block moves by various tools. The design is in fact, intended to be "safe". Microsoft didn't write that originally, and it was inherited from the contracting of the defrag program. (The defrag in WinXP was written by a third-party.) Now, that particular API is available to *all* third parties wishing to defrag safely. The JKDefrag program for example, the author can say "it's safe", because he calls only the MS API to make changes to your disk. They only way you might screw things up, is if defragmenting a *damaged* file system. An example of a damaged file system, would be one on WinXP, where regular CHKDSK is not done. It's up to the user to verify partitions there. Some users will never run CHKDSK, and latent faults could accumulate in the file system. Typically this happens, just before the disk is about to die :-) The latest Windows OSes, have a continuous CHKDSK process they run. This reduces the odds of a file system being damaged. So when you fire off a defrag, you can be fairly confident there aren't any latent faults in the file system being defragmented. This is better than running fsck every hundred days :-) And you can see this, when you run CHKDSK from the GUI. (Right-click the partition in Win10, do Properties. Then Tools, then Error Checking.) I've not seen a really detailed article, describing what the background consistency checks are, but Microsoft is confident enough, t be using the language in this dialog box. https://s29.postimg.org/j5gutzi9j/br..._interface.gif The interface will put up a dialog to the effect "we haven't seen any problems, but you can scan this anyway", and then it allows the CHKDSK scan to proceed. The reason for the snotty dialog, is to point out that a background maintenance thing is running on that partition, to ensure there won't be surprises. If you do that on WinXP, there won't be that dialog, because they *haven't* been running CHKDSK on your behalf. It's up to you to CHKDSK/fsck every once in a while. And especially if you did something like power-off in mid session. While the Dirty Bit could be set per partition, it isn't always, and I don't take chances here after power events, and I scan everything. The defragmenter can safely run, at the same time as the partition is doing heavy I/O. The user would be an idiot, if attempting that though. As the defragmenter cannot make much progress, if thrashing (mixing) with other I/O present. File integrity is still there, but no benefit would be gained from mixing the two activities. Defrag is scheduled to run at night, but nothing prevents Microsoft's ham-fisted maintenance activities, from causing high I/O while the defrag runs (there could be a three-hour Search Indexer operation in-flight, and I don't think Windows Update really "waits" for any other process to stop). I see all sorts of edge cases in Win10, where a better "order" to maintenance would have worked. I only see this stuff, because of the annoyance it causes. Paul |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 8/20/2017 1:45 PM, Stef wrote: On 18/8/2017 09:20, Paul wrote: Stef wrote: On 18/8/2017 01:25, Davidm wrote: On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:13:26 -0000 (UTC), wg_2002 wrote: On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:38:55 +0100, Martin Edwards wrote: My defragmenter played up yesterday, but it worked this morning. I have the icons for Disc Cleanup and Defragmenter on my desktop as I started with W7. I now have W10 which does not let you get at the programs. How will I get them if I get a new computer? Open file explorer and right click on your c: drive then click on properties at the bottom. Under the tools tab click optimize and that will bring up the defragmenter/trim gui. Doesn't W10 defrag in the background anyway, no need to run it manually? That's the default, but if your computer is turned off when defrag is scheduled to run . . . Isn't it about time MS released a filesystem that doesn't need defragging? Other OSes have them. NTFS is a quarter of a century old for god's sake! Even with all those patches installed over the years, its foundation is still ancient technology. Time to replace it with something better. Or enable Windows so it can use other filesystems. Stef I think the current design of Windows 10, handles the situation with intelligence. Regularly scheduled defrags keep the "percentage" number low. They have also added something (special handling) for certain problem files. And this seems to have been added on the later versions of Win10. But I have ways of creating a mess. My "100% fragmented" volume, a small volume by the way, was the result of doing a chromium build. And just for fun, I had the defrag.exe take a crack at that. Well, it needed a little help, because I wasn't meeting the minimum white space requirement. There was no place to move the files. In average usage, stuff like this doesn't happen. If I'd done the software build on a regular hard drive, with lots of slack, there would have been no issue at all. But I did the build on a RAMdisk which was barely big enough for the job. The fragmentation makes no difference to a RAMDisk, but I thought it would be fun to see whether the defragmenter utility could handle a pretty severe mess. Once I'd helped it out, it worked fine. But it couldn't get past the first bit. Its heuristic wasn't good enough. Microsoft has another file system. This is newer than NTFS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refs "In addition, Windows cannot be booted from a ReFS volume." So apparently, that's not what it is for. And I cannot tell from that article, whether fragmentation remains an issue or not. Ah! Yes. The Ol' Resilient File System. Read about it. Seems designed more for servers with RAID, multiple hard drives and partitions than single drive/single partition consumer machines. Rumored to be a future replacement for NTFS, but that was in 2012 when it was released with MS Server 2012, and as you said you can't boot the OS from it. So, you still need NTFS. So, NOT a replacement, but an addendum. And as far as defragging: In all the reading I've done no where is it explicitly stated that it doesn't need it. So I'll surmise it does just like NTFS. (Except on SSDs, of course) Because if it didn't, Microsoft would be shouting that fact from the highest roof tops all over the world. So, don't expect a full NTFS, no-defragging-needed, replacement file system any time soon. When or if it happens, it will be a day late and a dollar short. Such is the way of Microsoft. For now, you'll just have to be satisfied humming along in that utilitarian '52 Buick with the holes in the sides and Hydra-Matic transmission. ;-) Stef Hi Stef, Just to further your automotive knowledge, The 1952 Buick ran a DynaFlow transmission, It was so slow on acceleration that we called it a DipaFlow, The side holes where originaly engine compartment vents but where later plugged. From an old mechanic of the 50s and 60s, Now retired Power Egineer. :-) Regards, Rene They were a lot simpler back then. https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hc...r/3695971.html The new transmissions come with 3D pictures. That's how much we've progressed. Just imagine what it would cost to have to replace a thing like this. $5K ? $7K ? http://media.caranddriver.com/images...s-1280x782.jpg Paul |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote: On 21/8/2017 10:13, Char Jackson wrote: On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:25:44 +0000 (UTC), Stef wrote: But defragging is an inconvienence at the very least. Fragmentation is not an inconvenience for me. The last time I manually defragged one of my own systems was at least 15 years ago. I don't even own any of those systems anymore. None of my current PCs have ever been manually defragged. If I check the fragmentation percentage, it's always around 2-3%, which I don't think anyone would consider to be a problem. Then you're one of the lucky ones. And whether done manually or automatically, defragging still uses system resources, and if you happen to be using the system at the same time it will probably be sluggish. And if accessing the volume that is being defragged, you may not be able to, or it will be slow if you can, and there is the chance of a fault and you loose files, data or the partition gets corrupted. That's why if a defrag is in progress, I leave the system alone until it's done. Just to be safe. Yes, of course, defragging uses system resources, just like anything else, but it's not a reason to be afraid of poor system response or even data loss. If you're using a defragger that has EVER caused you data loss, or has EVER denied you access while it's running, I'd say two things: Why do you feel you need to use a defragger, and why on earth would you continue to use that one? Dump it ASAP. No respectable defragger does any of those things. The real point I was trying to make, though, is that you don't need to worry about fragmentation. You apparently disagree, which is fine. But on Windows defragging is still necessary whether it's automatic or manual. And the whole point of this thread is that NTFS is OLD (25 years!) technology that is past due for replacement. MS did release ReFS to address NTFS' shortcomings, but ReFS still needs defragging just not as frequently -- as far as I can determine. Agreed, NTFS is old, but what problem(s) are you having with it? If your biggest, or only, complaint is fragmentation, then I'd say there really isn't an issue. In the next section you mention some perceived shortcomings, but fragmentation didn't make the list. But there are still millions of spinning drives out there, and will be for a long, long time. NTFS lacks the improvements of today's modern file systems particularly speed, reliability, and file integrity. Its basic design just does not permit those features to be added to it. Hence ReFS as a stop-gap "fix." It's time NTFS was replaced. Just consider the time wasted by HAVING to defrag to keep HD performance optimum and the real possibility of files being lost or damaged. Wouldn't it be better not to have to? I don't think we've had to for about 15 years. You mean manually? Just because you yourself aren't defragging doesn't mean it isn't being done and necessarily so. So, your statement is misleading. And if your system is turned off -- most people don't leave their machines running 24/7 -- when the defrag is scheduled, it doesn't get done. Your whole complaint has been that you don't think you should have to defrag your hard disks. Well, you don't, and you haven't had to for a very long time now. Yes, Windows takes care of it behind the scenes, but Windows does a lot of things behind the scenes. If you routinely don't have your PC on when a scheduled task is set to run, you might want to reconfigure that task to run at a different time. Or every now and then, leave the PC on overnight when you a task is scheduled to run, or just run the task manually every so often. Bottom line, in the vast majority of cases there's no reason to worry about fragmentation anymore. Unless you just want to, of course. Some people like the fragmentation graphic to be pretty. I get that. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 16:14:35 -0400, Paul wrote:
Microsoft provides an API specifically for defragmentation. It's also used in some cases, for block moves by various tools. The design is in fact, intended to be "safe". Microsoft didn't write that originally, and it was inherited from the contracting of the defrag program. (The defrag in WinXP was written by a third-party.) I seem to remember the built-in defrag being a stripped version of DiskKeeper. Does that sound right? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag
On 8/22/2017 3:40 PM, Paul wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote: On 8/20/2017 1:45 PM, Stef wrote: On 18/8/2017 09:20, Paul wrote: Stef wrote: On 18/8/2017 01:25, Davidm wrote: On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:13:26 -0000 (UTC), wg_2002 wrote: On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:38:55 +0100, Martin Edwards wrote: My defragmenter played up yesterday, but it worked this morning. I have the icons for Disc Cleanup and Defragmenter on my desktop as I started with W7. I now have W10 which does not let you get at the programs. How will I get them if I get a new computer? Open file explorer and right click on your c: drive then click on properties at the bottom. Under the tools tab click optimize and that will bring up the defragmenter/trim gui. Doesn't W10 defrag in the background anyway, no need to run it manually? That's the default, but if your computer is turned off when defrag is scheduled to run . . . Isn't it about time MS released a filesystem that doesn't need defragging? Other OSes have them. NTFS is a quarter of a century old for god's sake! Even with all those patches installed over the years, its foundation is still ancient technology. Time to replace it with something better. Or enable Windows so it can use other filesystems. Stef I think the current design of Windows 10, handles the situation with intelligence. Regularly scheduled defrags keep the "percentage" number low. They have also added something (special handling) for certain problem files. And this seems to have been added on the later versions of Win10. But I have ways of creating a mess. My "100% fragmented" volume, a small volume by the way, was the result of doing a chromium build. And just for fun, I had the defrag.exe take a crack at that. Well, it needed a little help, because I wasn't meeting the minimum white space requirement. There was no place to move the files. In average usage, stuff like this doesn't happen. If I'd done the software build on a regular hard drive, with lots of slack, there would have been no issue at all. But I did the build on a RAMdisk which was barely big enough for the job. The fragmentation makes no difference to a RAMDisk, but I thought it would be fun to see whether the defragmenter utility could handle a pretty severe mess. Once I'd helped it out, it worked fine. But it couldn't get past the first bit. Its heuristic wasn't good enough. Microsoft has another file system. This is newer than NTFS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refs "In addition, Windows cannot be booted from a ReFS volume." So apparently, that's not what it is for. And I cannot tell from that article, whether fragmentation remains an issue or not. Ah! Yes. The Ol' Resilient File System. Read about it. Seems designed more for servers with RAID, multiple hard drives and partitions than single drive/single partition consumer machines. Rumored to be a future replacement for NTFS, but that was in 2012 when it was released with MS Server 2012, and as you said you can't boot the OS from it. So, you still need NTFS. So, NOT a replacement, but an addendum. And as far as defragging: In all the reading I've done no where is it explicitly stated that it doesn't need it. So I'll surmise it does just like NTFS. (Except on SSDs, of course) Because if it didn't, Microsoft would be shouting that fact from the highest roof tops all over the world. So, don't expect a full NTFS, no-defragging-needed, replacement file system any time soon. When or if it happens, it will be a day late and a dollar short. Such is the way of Microsoft. For now, you'll just have to be satisfied humming along in that utilitarian '52 Buick with the holes in the sides and Hydra-Matic transmission. ;-) Stef Hi Stef, Just to further your automotive knowledge, The 1952 Buick ran a DynaFlow transmission, It was so slow on acceleration that we called it a DipaFlow, The side holes where originaly engine compartment vents but where later plugged. From an old mechanic of the 50s and 60s, Now retired Power Egineer. :-) Regards, Rene They were a lot simpler back then. https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hc...r/3695971.html The new transmissions come with 3D pictures. That's how much we've progressed. Just imagine what it would cost to have to replace a thing like this. $5K ? $7K ? http://media.caranddriver.com/images...s-1280x782.jpg Paul At least $9K, I see some with 9 speeds!!! what a monster to overhaul!. I did Powerglides, Hydra-Matics and The Chrysler 727 which was the nicest one to overhaul, It was light, Sturdy and could handle 450 HP way back in the 60s. Rene |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag
Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 16:14:35 -0400, Paul wrote: Microsoft provides an API specifically for defragmentation. It's also used in some cases, for block moves by various tools. The design is in fact, intended to be "safe". Microsoft didn't write that originally, and it was inherited from the contracting of the defrag program. (The defrag in WinXP was written by a third-party.) I seem to remember the built-in defrag being a stripped version of DiskKeeper. Does that sound right? That appears to be the one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskeeper "The defragmentation program which is included with Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 is based on a basic version of Diskeeper. " Paul |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag
On 8/22/2017 9:14 PM, Paul wrote:
Stef wrote: there is the chance of a fault and you loose files, data or the partition gets corrupted. That's why if a defrag is in progress, I leave the system alone until it's done. Just to be safe. Actually, no. Microsoft provides an API specifically for defragmentation. It's also used in some cases, for block moves by various tools. The design is in fact, intended to be "safe". Microsoft didn't write that originally, and it was inherited from the contracting of the defrag program. (The defrag in WinXP was written by a third-party.) Now, that particular API is available to *all* third parties wishing to defrag safely. The JKDefrag program for example, the author can say "it's safe", because he calls only the MS API to make changes to your disk. They only way you might screw things up, is if defragmenting a *damaged* file system. An example of a damaged file system, would be one on WinXP, where regular CHKDSK is not done. It's up to the user to verify partitions there. Some users will never run CHKDSK, and latent faults could accumulate in the file system. Typically this happens, just before the disk is about to die :-) The latest Windows OSes, have a continuous CHKDSK process they run. This reduces the odds of a file system being damaged. So when you fire off a defrag, you can be fairly confident there aren't any latent faults in the file system being defragmented. This is better than running fsck every hundred days :-) And you can see this, when you run CHKDSK from the GUI. (Right-click the partition in Win10, do Properties. Then Tools, then Error Checking.) I've not seen a really detailed article, describing what the background consistency checks are, but Microsoft is confident enough, t be using the language in this dialog box. https://s29.postimg.org/j5gutzi9j/br..._interface.gif The interface will put up a dialog to the effect "we haven't seen any problems, but you can scan this anyway", and then it allows the CHKDSK scan to proceed. The reason for the snotty dialog, is to point out that a background maintenance thing is running on that partition, to ensure there won't be surprises. If you do that on WinXP, there won't be that dialog, because they *haven't* been running CHKDSK on your behalf. It's up to you to CHKDSK/fsck every once in a while. And especially if you did something like power-off in mid session. While the Dirty Bit could be set per partition, it isn't always, and I don't take chances here after power events, and I scan everything. The defragmenter can safely run, at the same time as the partition is doing heavy I/O. The user would be an idiot, if attempting that though. As the defragmenter cannot make much progress, if thrashing (mixing) with other I/O present. File integrity is still there, but no benefit would be gained from mixing the two activities. Defrag is scheduled to run at night, but nothing prevents Microsoft's ham-fisted maintenance activities, from causing high I/O while the defrag runs (there could be a three-hour Search Indexer operation in-flight, and I don't think Windows Update really "waits" for any other process to stop). I see all sorts of edge cases in Win10, where a better "order" to maintenance would have worked. I only see this stuff, because of the annoyance it causes. Paul What is an API? -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag
On 8/22/2017 11:41 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Stef wrote: On 21/8/2017 10:13, Char Jackson wrote: On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:25:44 +0000 (UTC), Stef wrote: But defragging is an inconvienence at the very least. Fragmentation is not an inconvenience for me. The last time I manually defragged one of my own systems was at least 15 years ago. I don't even own any of those systems anymore. None of my current PCs have ever been manually defragged. If I check the fragmentation percentage, it's always around 2-3%, which I don't think anyone would consider to be a problem. Then you're one of the lucky ones. And whether done manually or automatically, defragging still uses system resources, and if you happen to be using the system at the same time it will probably be sluggish. And if accessing the volume that is being defragged, you may not be able to, or it will be slow if you can, and there is the chance of a fault and you loose files, data or the partition gets corrupted. That's why if a defrag is in progress, I leave the system alone until it's done. Just to be safe. Yes, of course, defragging uses system resources, just like anything else, but it's not a reason to be afraid of poor system response or even data loss. If you're using a defragger that has EVER caused you data loss, or has EVER denied you access while it's running, I'd say two things: Why do you feel you need to use a defragger, and why on earth would you continue to use that one? Dump it ASAP. No respectable defragger does any of those things. The real point I was trying to make, though, is that you don't need to worry about fragmentation. You apparently disagree, which is fine. But on Windows defragging is still necessary whether it's automatic or manual. And the whole point of this thread is that NTFS is OLD (25 years!) technology that is past due for replacement. MS did release ReFS to address NTFS' shortcomings, but ReFS still needs defragging just not as frequently -- as far as I can determine. Agreed, NTFS is old, but what problem(s) are you having with it? If your biggest, or only, complaint is fragmentation, then I'd say there really isn't an issue. In the next section you mention some perceived shortcomings, but fragmentation didn't make the list. But there are still millions of spinning drives out there, and will be for a long, long time. NTFS lacks the improvements of today's modern file systems particularly speed, reliability, and file integrity. Its basic design just does not permit those features to be added to it. Hence ReFS as a stop-gap "fix." It's time NTFS was replaced. Just consider the time wasted by HAVING to defrag to keep HD performance optimum and the real possibility of files being lost or damaged. Wouldn't it be better not to have to? I don't think we've had to for about 15 years. You mean manually? Just because you yourself aren't defragging doesn't mean it isn't being done and necessarily so. So, your statement is misleading. And if your system is turned off -- most people don't leave their machines running 24/7 -- when the defrag is scheduled, it doesn't get done. Your whole complaint has been that you don't think you should have to defrag your hard disks. Well, you don't, and you haven't had to for a very long time now. Yes, Windows takes care of it behind the scenes, but Windows does a lot of things behind the scenes. If you routinely don't have your PC on when a scheduled task is set to run, you might want to reconfigure that task to run at a different time. Or every now and then, leave the PC on overnight when you a task is scheduled to run, or just run the task manually every so often. Bottom line, in the vast majority of cases there's no reason to worry about fragmentation anymore. Unless you just want to, of course. Some people like the fragmentation graphic to be pretty. I get that. My computer is often only on for an hour a day. I still have the icons inherited from W7. I had one part of my question answered by the first reply, and worked the other part out myself, so I know what to do if I change my computer. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag
Martin Edwards wrote:
What is an API? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applic...ming_interface "A good API makes it easier to develop a computer program by providing all the building blocks, which are then put together by the programmer." Having a collection of "building blocks", saves a *lot* of labor. Paul |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag
On 22/8/2017 12:19, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 8/20/2017 1:45 PM, Stef wrote: On 18/8/2017 09:20, Paul wrote: [big, big snip] Stef Hi Stef, Just to further your automotive knowledge, The 1952 Buick ran a DynaFlow transmission, It was so slow on acceleration that we called it a DipaFlow, The side holes where originaly engine compartment vents but where later plugged. From an old mechanic of the 50s and 60s, Now retired Power Egineer. :-) Yes, I knew Hydra-Matic wasn't in the Buicks. I just couldn't remember the Dyna-Flow name. Thanks for reminding me. Know about the holes, too. Later just nonfunctional, artsy-fartsy design element like fins that would infect car design later. Stef |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|