Re: XP Defrager
- From: "db" <databaseben at hotmail>
- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:41:21 -0500
I agree with you
too.
--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
"share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"JS" <@> wrote in message news:e#L#NOMpJHA.1172@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Don't dispute your comments, the only point I.
was trying to make was that Microsoft must put
some value as to how much the disk is fragmented
or they would have changed there algorithm in such
a way as to factor out the percentage of fragmentation
from the score.
It would be interesting to see how much the score
changed if you could (After a clean install) move all
the files to the end of the disk and run there benchmark,
then move the all the file to the beginning of the disk drive
and run the test again.
--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com
"db" <databaseben at hotmail> wrote in message news:04FD82C2-CA3A-4EA2-9091-C6F1E522ACED@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxI don't dispute your
score,
however, the score is
a mathematical estimation,
not unlike the percentage
of defragmentation that
windows provides.
the lower the percentage
the higher the score -
mathematically speaking.
however your disk is likely
functioning just as optimal
after the defrag as it was
before the defrag.
if anything, I think that having
all the files necessary for
booting together, will improve
boot up time.
but that is about all the benefit
to be achieved from defragging.
I think diskkeeper also made
a statement citing that defragging
improves the performance of
anti virus software
what needs to be taken into
consideration is that whatever
the score you achieved after
the defrag will change in a
few hours because the disk
is always in a state of
fragmentation.
previously, the point I was
trying to make is based on
"time"
whereas one can allocate
a few hours to defrag the disk
or simply accept that defragging
doesn't save any time because
aggregating fragmented files is
normal and by virtue will add a
micro second to aggregate each
fragment into memory.
my philosophy is that a better
method of managing data is
simply segregating data via disk
partitioning or having multiple
drives.
--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
"share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"JS" <@> wrote in message news:ONX7wEEpJHA.1340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxI installed the Windows 7 beta (Clean Install) and the
performance rating test showed a low number
for my disk drive.
Defragmented the hard drive and the disk performance
score improved by more than 30%. So Microsoft must
test the drive in such a way as to downgrade a drive score
if it fragmented.
--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com
"db" <databaseben at hotmail> wrote in message news:EBAFD183-9255-4290-AB02-B472C11019A7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrussinovich disagrees and
feels that defragging does
improve system performance.
and though fat systems may
gain improved performance
from defragging,
I agree with the ms engineers
that on ntfs, it is really a waste
of time.
as we know, the system
partition will never stay
unfragmented.
at best, multiple partitions
on a disk is better at keeping
data segregated and reducing
fragmentation.
--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
"share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Tom [Pepper] Willett" <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:uNXkxSCpJHA.5228@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAnd if Microsoft engineers have that conclusion, it must be so. MS is never
wrong.
"db" <databaseben at hotmail> wrote in message
news:D5A6C2E9-3215-4E1A-979A-ABA419BEC224@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: microsoft software engineers
: have concluded that defragging
: disks that are ntfs is not
: necessary.
:
: and after some analysis, I
: believe they have a valid
: point.
:
: so one can spend much
: time defragging the disk.
:
: on the other hand the time
: saved by not defragging is
: allocated in the time it takes
: to aggregate fragmented
: files into memory.
:
: but in the end, I think we
: people simply like seeing
: an organized disk and
: defrag it.
:
: also in the end the system
: partition never, "never" stays
: unfragmented,
:
: "6 of one, half a dozen of
: another, as the ol'cliché goes"
: -------
:
: in regards to free defrags, I
: have also come to learn that
: some appear to be defragging
: but are not.
:
: ultimately, they are designed
: to scan the system, as spywares do.
:
:
: then provide false statistics/results
: eluding that the disk is defrag'd
: when it is not.
:
: my suggestion is to simply stick
: with the built in windows defrag.
:
: -----------------
:
: db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
: DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
: - Systems Analyst
: - Database Developer
: - Accountancy
: - Veteran of the Armed Forces
:
: "share the nirvana" - dbZen
:
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: >
: >
:
: "Casey" <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.24247099859f960898969f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: >
: > Hi everyone, Running XP-home SP2. Yesterday I read
: > on the XP Myths site about the design problems with the
: > build in XP Defrager. So, I am looking for a replacement
: > defrager that has served others well. Could someone
: > recommend a (perferably free) defrager.
: > Thanks you,
: > Casey
: >
: >
- References:
- XP Defrager
- From: Casey
- Re: XP Defrager
- From: db
- Re: XP Defrager
- From: Tom [Pepper] Willett
- Re: XP Defrager
- From: db
- Re: XP Defrager
- From: db
- XP Defrager
- Prev by Date: Re: Is WinXP Sp3 update necessary?
- Next by Date: www.brand-clothing.com wholesale air jordan lacoste t-shirts,gucci Mauri shoe
- Previous by thread: Re: XP Defrager
- Next by thread: Re: XP Defrager
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
