Re: Defrag strategy to extend disk life

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

On Tue, 6 May 2008 03:19:09 -0500, "philo" <philo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<snip>

defragging or not defragging
one way or the other is *not* going to affect disk wear in any
significant
way.

defragging is useful only in terms of performance.

Hello, Philo,

Could you please elaborate on why unfragmented files would not extend
disk life? It seems that noticably more disk churning is needed for
the same amount of data access on a fragmented file. Is there not
more head movement as well?

As well, for non-background defragging, is once a week typically
sufficient?


With your machine tunred on...unless the drive is in the sleep mode,
it's always rotating...the armature's movement is not what is going to wear
out a drive.

I don't know if this analogy is any good
but it's like saying that your automobile will fail sooner
if you bring a passenger along with you.

As to non-background defragging..
unless you are really using your machine heavily...I doubt if you need to
defrag
more than once a month. I might defrag my machine 5 or 6 times a year.

The old Norton Speed Disk had options for files to be 'stored at end
of disk', by preference, and would group files in order of activity or
date of access. The 'most frequently accessed' files were located
adjacent to remaining empty space. It would also place the swap files
for early windows systems in the first sectors.

I think the idea was that seldom accessed files could be located so as
to reduce hardware travel and access time.

Whether this increased disk life or reduced noise, power consumption
or mechanical wear is not obvious.

I think the best strategy for maintaining disk life involves locating
the hardware permanently (no toy trays) where it's not going to get
kicked or dropped or overheat, using good quality connectors, and
replacing your power supply at least every two years.

RL
.

Quantcast