Is defraging necessary?

In article ,
says...

What about defragmentation with a RAID system? Doesn't this system eliminate
file defragmentation? I am under the impression that it is two copies of
everything (one on each drive), it is a faster (and ??more stable system??)
and more reliable system?

File Fragmentation is the same on a RAID or non-RAID volume.

Those new HDD's that are flash drives, SSD I think, they don't need
defragmentation I saw in some tutorials. Since they are flash based, if I
defragment my flash memory cards or my memory sticks, is this a bad idea?

It would depend on the Flash drive/disk, if it has some means, other
than what the OS uses, to control file fragments. Consider how and why
FILE fragmentation is created.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
(remove 999 for proper email address)

On 05/15/2010 03:43 AM, Leythos wrote:
In m,
says...
There is no evidence that defragging speeds up your system in any
shape or form. No something you will notice it when using your
system everyday.


There is plenty of evidence that file defrag improves drive system
performance, only a person with limited experience would suggest
otherwise.



My goodness, I agree with Leythos. What's the world coming to?

--
Alias

In article ,
says...

On 05/15/2010 03:43 AM, Leythos wrote:
In m,
says...
There is no evidence that defragging speeds up your system in any
shape or form. No something you will notice it when using your
system everyday.


There is plenty of evidence that file defrag improves drive system
performance, only a person with limited experience would suggest
otherwise.



My goodness, I agree with Leythos. What's the world coming to?

Well, that will certainly harm my credibility, having you agree with
something I've written.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
(remove 999 for proper email address)

On Fri, 14 May 2010 23:34:02 -0700, Brian V
wrote:

What about defragmentation with a RAID system? Doesn't this system eliminate
file defragmentation?


No.


I am under the impression that it is two copies of everything (one on each drive),


That's only *one* type of RAID, RAID 0.


it is a faster (and ??more stable system??)
and more reliable system?



In theory, yes. In practice, hardly ever.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On 5/15/2010 2:34 AM, Brian V wrote:
(snip)

Those new HDD's that are flash drives, SSD I think, they don't need
defragmentation I saw in some tutorials. Since they are flash based, if I
defragment my flash memory cards or my memory sticks, is this a bad idea?


The motivation behind defragmenting is avoiding the time necessary for a
mechanical drive head to shift to a different cylinder (track) and
settle into place (they vibrate a little when they stop). On a
fragmented drive you might have a constant situation where the head is
shifting back and forth between two or more cylinders reading successive
segments of a file.

To a lesser extent the drive might have to wait for a particular file
segment to rotate into position under the drive head.

Since flash drives, SSDs and camera memory cards aren't dependent on
rotating disks or heads shifting between cylinders, fragmentation would
be significantly less of a delay (if any at all).

In article ,
says...
What about defragmentation with a RAID system? Doesn't this system eliminate
file defragmentation? I am under the impression that it is two copies of
everything (one on each drive), it is a faster (and ??more stable system??)
and more reliable system?


RAID, there are many types, has some performance benefits and some
performance penalties:

RAID-0 fast reads/writes, no redundancy
RAID-1 fast reads/slow writes, redundant
RAID-5 fast reads/slow writes, redundant
RAID-0+1 fast reads/writes, redundant

There are cases to use each one, no one type is best for everyone.

All drives, arrays, become file fragmented, even if you keep the
drives/arrays 50% empty or more, it just happens.

The impact of fragmentation is also individual, meaning that some people
will never feel the difference, others will notice a difference between
very fragmented and not fragmented.

I defragment by workstations every couple months, servers on weekends,
but I'm only one type of user, you might need more or less.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
(remove 999 for proper email address)

On 05/15/2010 04:48 PM, Leythos wrote:
In ,
says...

On 05/15/2010 03:43 AM, Leythos wrote:
In m,
says...
There is no evidence that defragging speeds up your system in any
shape or form. No something you will notice it when using your
system everyday.


There is plenty of evidence that file defrag improves drive system
performance, only a person with limited experience would suggest
otherwise.



My goodness, I agree with Leythos. What's the world coming to?

Well, that will certainly harm my credibility, having you agree with
something I've written.


Poor baby. Do you think you'll get over it?

--
Alias

Defragging a system won't
do you any harm so you
should try it and make your
own determination if it is a
a worthwhile process.

however, there was a time that
defrag did improve performance
for systems that had hard disks
with limited drive space and
had slow data access speeds.

But nowadays hard drives
are faster and larger and
fragmentation is no longer
a contributing factor in
performance.

as the matter of fact, technical
documentation from microsoft
pertaining to vista state that
defragging disk is no longer
necessary and "does not improve
system performance".

perhaps, it is because the computer
turns right around and creates fragments
of the data that was defrag's


however, the quandary exists at
microsoft because on the one
hand the technicians have tested
and made a thorough analysis
on the ineffectiveness of defragging
large and faster disks in vista,

but at the same time microsoft
includes a defragging utility in
with the o.s.

in any case, everyone has
unique systems that benefit
by unique methodologies.

as stated before you can run
defrag and ascertain a personal
assessment of performance

or if you born back when American
culture was factually experiencing
induced enlightenment,

then you might find unfragmenting
files to be entertaining.

--
--
db·´¯`·...¸)))º
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Lisa" wrote in message
...
I was told by a computer repairman that it's not necessary to defrag my
laptop. If the hard drive gets full, remove files and always make sure
I'm
using a virus protection.
What are your thoughts?

How can you possibly state that fragmentation is no longer a factor in
performance?
If you ONLY had one fragment, it would add a minimum of 10 MS to a read
operation.
"Db" wrote in message
...
Defragging a system won't
do you any harm so you
should try it and make your
own determination if it is a
a worthwhile process.

however, there was a time that
defrag did improve performance
for systems that had hard disks
with limited drive space and
had slow data access speeds.

But nowadays hard drives
are faster and larger and
fragmentation is no longer
a contributing factor in
performance.

as the matter of fact, technical
documentation from microsoft
pertaining to vista state that
defragging disk is no longer
necessary and "does not improve
system performance".

perhaps, it is because the computer
turns right around and creates fragments
of the data that was defrag's


however, the quandary exists at
microsoft because on the one
hand the technicians have tested
and made a thorough analysis
on the ineffectiveness of defragging
large and faster disks in vista,

but at the same time microsoft
includes a defragging utility in
with the o.s.

in any case, everyone has
unique systems that benefit
by unique methodologies.

as stated before you can run
defrag and ascertain a personal
assessment of performance

or if you born back when American
culture was factually experiencing
induced enlightenment,

then you might find unfragmenting
files to be entertaining.

--
--
db·´¯`·...¸)))º
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Lisa" wrote in message
...
I was told by a computer repairman that it's not necessary to defrag my
laptop. If the hard drive gets full, remove files and always make sure
I'm
using a virus protection.
What are your thoughts?

In article ,
says...
But nowadays hard drives
are faster and larger and
fragmentation is no longer
a contributing factor in
performance.


You are really showing why people don't listen to you - while a small
amount of file fragmentation will hardly be noticed, massive amounts
dramatically impact overall file performance.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
(remove 999 for proper email address)

Unknown wrote:
How can you possibly state that fragmentation is no longer a factor in
performance?

The same way that many people thought that Sarah Palin was actually
qualified to be Vice President??? (Hint: that's how).

If you ONLY had one fragment, it would add a minimum of 10 MS to a read
operation.
"Db" wrote in message
...
Defragging a system won't
do you any harm so you
should try it and make your
own determination if it is a
a worthwhile process.

however, there was a time that
defrag did improve performance
for systems that had hard disks
with limited drive space and
had slow data access speeds.

But nowadays hard drives
are faster and larger and
fragmentation is no longer
a contributing factor in
performance.

as the matter of fact, technical
documentation from microsoft
pertaining to vista state that
defragging disk is no longer
necessary and "does not improve
system performance".

perhaps, it is because the computer
turns right around and creates fragments
of the data that was defrag's


however, the quandary exists at
microsoft because on the one
hand the technicians have tested
and made a thorough analysis
on the ineffectiveness of defragging
large and faster disks in vista,

but at the same time microsoft
includes a defragging utility in
with the o.s.

in any case, everyone has
unique systems that benefit
by unique methodologies.

as stated before you can run
defrag and ascertain a personal
assessment of performance

or if you born back when American
culture was factually experiencing
induced enlightenment,

then you might find unfragmenting
files to be entertaining.

--
--
db·´¯`·...¸)))º
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Lisa" wrote in message
...
I was told by a computer repairman that it's not necessary to defrag my
laptop. If the hard drive gets full, remove files and always make sure
I'm
using a virus protection.
What are your thoughts?

WaIIy wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2010 14:14:38 -0600, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

The same way that many people thought that Sarah Palin was actually
qualified to be Vice President??? (Hint: that's how).

STFU with the political crap.

If you don't like it, you know where the door is.

On Sat, 15 May 2010 14:14:38 -0600, "Bill in Co."
wrote:


Unknown wrote:
How can you possibly state that fragmentation is no longer a factor in
performance?

The same way that many people thought that Sarah Palin was actually
qualified to be Vice President??? (Hint: that's how).


Seeing her so much in the news/papers I thought she was ;-)
Jim ( UK )





If you ONLY had one fragment, it would add a minimum of 10 MS to a read
operation.
"Db" wrote in message
...
Defragging a system won't
do you any harm so you
should try it and make your
own determination if it is a
a worthwhile process.

however, there was a time that
defrag did improve performance
for systems that had hard disks
with limited drive space and
had slow data access speeds.

But nowadays hard drives
are faster and larger and
fragmentation is no longer
a contributing factor in
performance.

as the matter of fact, technical
documentation from microsoft
pertaining to vista state that
defragging disk is no longer
necessary and "does not improve
system performance".

perhaps, it is because the computer
turns right around and creates fragments
of the data that was defrag's


however, the quandary exists at
microsoft because on the one
hand the technicians have tested
and made a thorough analysis
on the ineffectiveness of defragging
large and faster disks in vista,

but at the same time microsoft
includes a defragging utility in
with the o.s.

in any case, everyone has
unique systems that benefit
by unique methodologies.

as stated before you can run
defrag and ascertain a personal
assessment of performance

or if you born back when American
culture was factually experiencing
induced enlightenment,

then you might find unfragmenting
files to be entertaining.

--
--
db·´¯`·...¸)))º
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Lisa" wrote in message
...
I was told by a computer repairman that it's not necessary to defrag my
laptop. If the hard drive gets full, remove files and always make sure
I'm
using a virus protection.
What are your thoughts?

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...

Lisa wrote:
I was told by a computer repairman that it's not necessary to defrag
my laptop. If the hard drive gets full, remove files and always
make sure I'm using a virus protection.
What are your thoughts?

I can envision a situation in a data center with hundreds of
thousands of transactions per minute where defragging may be of some
slight benefit (assuming an NTFS file system).

I can also imagine a user devoted to daily defragging experiencing a
power interruption during a critical directory manipulation process.

On a small computer with many add/delete/grow/shrink operations,
defrag can significantly impact file access times and can be very
noticeable to users if their system was badly file fragmented before
the defrag.

White-Space fragmention is not normally an issue, but a file that is
fragmented into 8000 parts will have an impact on system performance.

This argument has gone on for decades, but it's the people that
maintain systems across many areas that know the benefits of defrag.

Ignorance can be fixed - hence the original question. It's knowing something
that is false that's the bigger problem.

Considering your example of 8,000 segments, consider: A minimum segment size
of 4096 bytes implies a minimum of 32 meg file. A FAT-32 system requires a
minimum of 16,000 head movements to gather all the pieces. In this case,
with an average access time of 12msec, you'll spend over six minutes just
moving the head around. Factor in rotational delay to bring the track marker
under the head, then rotational delay to find the sector, and so on, you're
up to ten minutes or so to read the file.

An NTFS system will suck up the file with ONE head movement. You still have
the rotational delays and so forth, but NTFS will cut the six minutes off
the slurp-up time.

De-fragging an NTFS system DOES have its uses: For those who dust the inside
covers of the books on their shelves and weekly scour the inside of the
toilet water tank, a sense of satisfaction infuses their very being after a
successful operation.

I personally think Prozac is cheaper, but to each his own.

wrote:

Why would anyone NOT defrag? It's so easy to do, and its something
you can start doing before dinner, or before going to bed. By the
time you're done eating, or wake up, it's finished.

NOT defragging slows down your computer.

Reduced efficiency is not easily detectable or significant on a
heavily-fragmented NTFS drive.

NOT defragging makes your hard drive work harder, and wears it out
sooner.

Nope. The head moves ONE time irrespective of the number of fragments (on an
NTFS drive).

NOT defragging makes it harder to retrieve data in the event a hard
drive begins to fail.

That IS true.


The more often you delete files or move them, the more often you
should defrag.

Yes. Heavy users could possibly detect some benefit with a sheduled defrag
every couple of years or so. Ordinary user, perhaps every decade.

Browsers in particular clutter drives with cache
files. Always clear the cache before defragging.

Whoever told you this is an idiot !!!