Re: defrag
- From: Three Lefts <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:25:19 -0700
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:13:34 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst"
<c.barnhorst@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have seen cases of severe fragmentation where several passes were
necessary if I wanted a complete defragmentation. In any case I use a
second fragmentation analysis and just follow the advice in the report.
99.9% the re-analysis says that defrag is not needed.
Even with severe fragmentation, I would like to know how long it would
be after the second defrag before the system was back to the same
state of fragmentation as it was just after the first defrag.
Secondly, if multiple defrags are really necessary, the defragger
should just do it or at least issue a warning that a second pass is
recommended.
"Three Lefts" <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message.
news:1pqb14h1hdcbphgqt3vppa5n0t7msfgg0l@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:20:44 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Are you paranoid??
Uh, no, I don't think so. Are you a ranting lunatic?
If time means that much to you don't defrag at all.
So I take it that time means nothing to you. That explains a lot about
your reaction.
The first defrag is worth the time, assuming that the disk is
suffiently fragged. A second defrag done immediately afterwards is not
cost effective, therefore, it's a net minus. Maybe that's too complex
of a concept for you.
If you are worried about any system crash
don't operate your computer.
Where do you come to these conclusions?
I was just pointing out that this is a (very) small risk, but a risk
nonetheless.
However, to prove a point, If you defrag, look
at the results. Then, defrag again and as I said
sometimes, although rarely, there IS a benefit to defragging twice.
The operative work here is *rarely*.
An even more relevant term would be insignificant as in insignificnat
benefit. To paraphrase the wisdom of Big Al, once you alphabetize your
file cabinet, doing it again is, well, pointless.
Using your logic, you should defrag continuously. You should do
nothing else. I would bet that running the machine for an hour (maybe
for 5 minutes) will result in more fragmentation than was left over
after the first defrag. If you are advocating a second consecutive
defrag, you must also advocate one every hours or so forever.
"Three Lefts" <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lelb14pk0ee2qlrgsj4sd2mq0p8p4l967g@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:44:20 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
No harm whatsoever. Sometimes it is even beneficial---but rarely.
What possible benefit can subsequent defrags ever have?
There is harm: (a) It takes time to do, so you are wasting a valuable
resource and (b) There's always a (very) small risk of some sort of
system crash resulting in corrupted files.
"Jay" <Jay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:751B2BB9-9596-4976-8CF1-835646CCD565@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Win Xp Pro -sp 2: Is there any benefit \ harm in running defrag
several
times consecutively TIA - Jay
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: defrag
- From: Nonny
- Re: defrag
- References:
- defrag
- From: Jay
- Re: defrag
- From: Unknown
- Re: defrag
- From: Three Lefts
- Re: defrag
- From: Unknown
- Re: defrag
- From: Three Lefts
- Re: defrag
- From: Colin Barnhorst
- defrag
- Prev by Date: Re: Windows doesn't startup with 3 GB memory
- Next by Date: Re: Double Click Options
- Previous by thread: Re: defrag
- Next by thread: Re: defrag
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
