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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A few defrag questions
I usually run the XP defrag program every 2-3 months. When I ran it
today, I took a closer look at the report than I have in the past. I noticed that it reports three fragmentation numbers: total fragmentation, file fragmentation, and free space fragmentation. How are these related? After the analyze (before the defrag), the total fragmentation was 14% and the file fragmentation was 28%. I don't remember the free space fragmentation number. After the defrag, the total fragmentation was 5%, the file fragmentation was 10%, and the free space fragmentation was 0%. Is the total fragmentation just the average of the other two? Is one of these more significant that another (for system performance)? What are the threshholds over which defragmentation is recommended? I see articles about continuous (background) defrag programs. Are these better than the manual ones? They claim to keep the disk constantly defragmented. Does this really matter much? They claim to save time because I don't have to run the defrag program and then not used the PC while it is working. Does this matter? I usually run it when I am not going to be using the machine for awhile, so there is little inconvenience other than having to do it. I already have a backup program running in the background (Carbonite). It claims to only use background time and not interfere with what I am doing. I haven't noticed any degradation in performance. The machine is slow at times, but it was before I installed Carbonite. I am just wondering if I can afford another background process. Tack manager already shows 2-3 pages of stuff. If these are wirthwhile, can anyone recommend one that is (a) effective, (b) reliable, and (c) safe? Cost is not a factor. Thanks |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A few defrag questions
Replies inline.
Three Lefts wrote: I usually run the XP defrag program every 2-3 months. Not often enough if computer is used regularly, although it will depend to some extent on what you do with your computer. You should ignore the "Do not need" message. When I ran it today, I took a closer look at the report than I have in the past. I noticed that it reports three fragmentation numbers: total fragmentation, file fragmentation, and free space fragmentation. How are these related? These statistics are really meaningless as the percentages reflect the total of all data on disk. If you removed all files ready for archiving the percentages would be much higher than if you retained all files on disk and never archived. Fragmented files will be those you regularly access and not those that are archived. Current accessed files are the files that matter not the statistics. If everday you access user created data files and these are fragmented then you will see slower performance. Separating current from archived data files simplifies defragmentation. After the analyze (before the defrag), the total fragmentation was 14% and the file fragmentation was 28%. I don't remember the free space fragmentation number. After the defrag, the total fragmentation was 5%, the file fragmentation was 10%, and the free space fragmentation was 0%. Is the total fragmentation just the average of the other two? Is one of these more significant that another (for system performance)? What are the threshholds over which defragmentation is recommended? None. Do it weekly if you use your computer daily and after any significant system / programme changes. I see articles about continuous (background) defrag programs. Are these better than the manual ones? Waste of money. They claim to keep the disk constantly defragmented. Does this really matter much? Fragmentation is only one of many factors that contribute to poor system performance. Removal of redundant files using Disk CleanUp or cCleaner should always be carried out before running Disk Defragmenter. It is the combination of housekeeping measures that help maintain good system performance. Compacting Outlook Express and monitoring Event Viewer Reports are also part of good housekeeping. They claim to save time because I don't have to run the defrag program and then not used the PC while it is working. Does this matter? I usually run it when I am not going to be using the machine for awhile, so there is little inconvenience other than having to do it. Running Disk Cleanup and Disk Defragmenter once a week should not take up much time. It only takes a long time if left for months. I already have a backup program running in the background (Carbonite). It claims to only use background time and not interfere with what I am doing. I haven't noticed any degradation in performance. The machine is slow at times, but it was before I installed Carbonite. I am just wondering if I can afford another background process. Tack manager already shows 2-3 pages of stuff. How much RAM? Try Ctrl+Alt+Delete to select Task Manager and click the Performance Tab. Under Commit Charge what is the Total, the Limit and the Peak? If these are wirthwhile, can anyone recommend one that is (a) effective, (b) reliable, and (c) safe? Cost is not a factor. Thanks -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A few defrag questions
I tried one of the disk defrag programs and found it just a waste of time
and money. It slowed the computer down quite a bit and did not appear to do a better job. "Three Lefts" wrote in message ... I usually run the XP defrag program every 2-3 months. When I ran it today, I took a closer look at the report than I have in the past. I noticed that it reports three fragmentation numbers: total fragmentation, file fragmentation, and free space fragmentation. How are these related? After the analyze (before the defrag), the total fragmentation was 14% and the file fragmentation was 28%. I don't remember the free space fragmentation number. After the defrag, the total fragmentation was 5%, the file fragmentation was 10%, and the free space fragmentation was 0%. Is the total fragmentation just the average of the other two? Is one of these more significant that another (for system performance)? What are the threshholds over which defragmentation is recommended? I see articles about continuous (background) defrag programs. Are these better than the manual ones? They claim to keep the disk constantly defragmented. Does this really matter much? They claim to save time because I don't have to run the defrag program and then not used the PC while it is working. Does this matter? I usually run it when I am not going to be using the machine for awhile, so there is little inconvenience other than having to do it. I already have a backup program running in the background (Carbonite). It claims to only use background time and not interfere with what I am doing. I haven't noticed any degradation in performance. The machine is slow at times, but it was before I installed Carbonite. I am just wondering if I can afford another background process. Tack manager already shows 2-3 pages of stuff. If these are wirthwhile, can anyone recommend one that is (a) effective, (b) reliable, and (c) safe? Cost is not a factor. Thanks |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A few defrag questions
"Three Lefts" wrote in message
... I usually run the XP defrag program every 2-3 months. When I ran it today, I took a closer look at the report than I have in the past. I noticed that it reports three fragmentation numbers: total fragmentation, file fragmentation, and free space fragmentation. How are these related? After the analyze (before the defrag), the total fragmentation was 14% and the file fragmentation was 28%. I don't remember the free space fragmentation number. After the defrag, the total fragmentation was 5%, the file fragmentation was 10%, and the free space fragmentation was 0%. Is the total fragmentation just the average of the other two? Is one of these more significant that another (for system performance)? What are the threshholds over which defragmentation is recommended? I see articles about continuous (background) defrag programs. Are these better than the manual ones? They claim to keep the disk constantly defragmented. Does this really matter much? They claim to save time because I don't have to run the defrag program and then not used the PC while it is working. Does this matter? I usually run it when I am not going to be using the machine for awhile, so there is little inconvenience other than having to do it. I already have a backup program running in the background (Carbonite). It claims to only use background time and not interfere with what I am doing. I haven't noticed any degradation in performance. The machine is slow at times, but it was before I installed Carbonite. I am just wondering if I can afford another background process. Tack manager already shows 2-3 pages of stuff. If these are wirthwhile, can anyone recommend one that is (a) effective, (b) reliable, and (c) safe? Cost is not a factor. Thanks If your drive is formatted in NTFS, it doesn't need defragmenting anywhere near that often. The three defragmentation numbers mean just what they say. -- Frank Saunders MS-MVP IE,OE/WM Do not reply with email |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|