Re: is there a better XP Defrag..?
- From: "Kelly" <kelly@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 00:56:27 -0500
Thank you, David.
--
All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)
Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com
"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
news:uOA8gj1aFHA.3048@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
See you are wrong, again.
Files are cached. Caching makes fragmentation irrelevent. So that leaves
files read for the first time. Your OS files will be probably unfragmented
after install. That leaves data files. How many data files does one read at
a time. I only load one word doc at a time. Even if it's in a thousand
pieces it will still load faster than I can react.
Now a file copy of lots of fragmented files will take a while longer. Big
deal, how often does one do that. The first application startup and system
startup will take longer, but prefetch reduces the effect of this. It may
not be measurable.
Defragging a floppy only system pays good dividends, especially if smartdrv
isn't being used. But as computers get faster and faster it doesn't matter.
I use perfect disk. I do it from habit and because I like tidy computers.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.html
=================================================
"Leythos" <void@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d0f541597071afc9898bd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <#qrmnHyaFHA.3864@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, kelly@xxxxxxxx
> says...
> > Am not going to argue with you. However, will stand by my previous
> > statement.
>
> I was just hoping you would understand the technical aspects of what
> file fragmentation means to read performance and how that a head moving
> but not reading is wasted time/performance.
>
> Maybe I can explain it better with a simple file copy/sort:
>
> If you have one hard drive, you have one raw text file, say 500MB in
> size, you want to sort it and then write it out to another file, the
> operation (to the drive) is something like this:
>
> 1) Position heads for next read segment of data
> 2) Read some data
> 3) Sort routine acts on it
> 4) Position heads for next write segment of data
> 5) Write output file data
> 6) repeat 1-5 until complete
>
> In this example, the heads have to move to reach file output file area
> each time there is a write, this slows down the operation.
>
> In a two drive example of the above:
>
> 1) Position D1 heads for initial read of data
> 2) Position D2 heads for initial write of data
> 3) D1 Read some data
> 4) Sort routine acts on it
> 5) D2 Write some data
> 6) Repeat 3-5 until complete
>
> The key here is that the heads don't have to reposition on either drive,
> they just keep moving in a sequential manner to the next sector, saving
> LOTS of time.
>
> This is overly simplified and doesn't account for multiple processes,
> but you get the idea - it's about head movement where no data is being
> read due to a file gap.
>
> Once you understand how the "gap" impacts drive performance there is
> nothing to argue about, it's simply a matter of read/can't read and the
> time wasted to get to the next part of the fragmented file.
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@xxxxxxxxxx
> remove 999 in order to email me
.
- References:
- is there a better XP Defrag..?
- From: Andrew
- Re: is there a better XP Defrag..?
- From: Kelly
- Re: is there a better XP Defrag..?
- From: Kelly
- is there a better XP Defrag..?
- Prev by Date: Re: How to check the version of Windows by file?
- Next by Date: Re: Safe mode
- Previous by thread: Re: is there a better XP Defrag..?
- Next by thread: Re: is there a better XP Defrag..?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
