 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows XP / General Topics 1 / May 2008Disk Defrag
Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of destroying your hard drive. Is this true? > Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of > destroying your hard drive. Is this true? The more activity, the more wear, just like the more you use your bicycle the more likely the chain will break. So, do you not use your hard disk at all between these defrags? You power up, do a defrag, and then power down until the next time you defrag? >> Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of >> destroying your hard drive. Is this true? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hard disk at all between these defrags? You power up, do a defrag, and > then power down until the next time you defrag? This begs the question: just how much is the MTBF reduced by running a defrag more often? I'm not sure anyone has collected the data to really know. I bet its impact is minimal, however, in practical terms. >>> Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of >>> destroying your hard drive. Is this true? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > defrag more often? I'm not sure anyone has collected the data to really > know. I bet its impact is minimal, however, in practical terms. Like begging the question as to how much shorter is the MTBF if there is less physical RAM so more pagefile space must be used. I know of users that like to use the flash memory thumb drives for pagefile space not realizing how often the pagefile gets used. Flash memory does wear out due to oxide stress. There is logic available on the drive to mask out bad areas but eventually the reserve gets used up and the thumb drive suddenly and catastrophically dies taking the pagefile with it and any changes saved there during the current Windows session. >>>> Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of >>>> destroying your hard drive. Is this true? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Like begging the question as to how much shorter is the MTBF if there is > less physical RAM so more pagefile space must be used. Yup Another interesting question. :-) > I know of users that like to use the flash memory thumb drives for > pagefile space not realizing how often the pagefile gets used. Sounds like a BAD idea (per below). > Flash memory does wear out due to oxide stress. There is logic available > on > the drive to mask out bad areas but eventually the reserve gets used up > and the thumb drive suddenly and catastrophically dies taking the > pagefile with it and any changes saved there during the current Windows > session. Right. We just had a discussion on that in the other group, and how the flash memory lifetime is limited to begin with, and running defrag on it can significantly reduce its lifetime. (Someone mentioned a figure of only 1000 erase/writes for each cell, but that the overall memory lifetime, from a user's standpoint, is increased (by the chip logic you mentioned), so that the end result is the average lifetime figure is more like 10,000 - 100,000 erase/write cycles. > Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of > destroying your hard drive. Is this true? There is a small risk of damaging your file system while defragging, e.g. when you suffer a power failure right in the middle. I think defragging once a month is plenty. Any more often would make no measurable difference but would increase the risk. >> Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of >> destroying your hard drive. Is this true? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > more often would make no measurable difference but > would increase the risk. I believe the use of journaling with NTFS compensates for that loss, and also if the content of the hard disk's PCB write buffers aren't flushed to the platters, too. Another reason to use NTFS rather than FAT. NTFS can use its journal log to determine how to return the disk to a consistent state upon recovery. >>> Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of >>> destroying your hard drive. Is this true? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > can use its journal log to determine how to return the disk to a > consistent state upon recovery. I am aware of this mechanism. It appears to work most of the time but once every so often we get a post in this newsgroup that reports a thrashed filing system after an interrupted defrag. >>>> Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of >>>> destroying your hard drive. Is this true? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > but once every so often we get a post in this newsgroup that reports > a thrashed filing system after an interrupted defrag. Which indicates the journaling actually failed? Wow. Well, maybe its not all that unexpected. Admitedly the overhead of NTFS has it advantages here, over FAT. I'll have to concede that. :-) Absolutely untrue. > Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of > destroying your hard drive. Is this true? It is not so much that you're running defrag as it is disk usage. Anything that heavily accesses the disk can eventually cause wear and tear on the mechanisms sufficiently to shorten disk drive life (even if slightly) when run excessively. You can get the same effect by constantly running chkdks or other disk utilities far more often than needed. But don't let that slight concern prevent you from running defrag appropriately (when the defrag analyser says you should defrag). These are reasons why folks should maintain a good backup plan. Hard drives do eventually just wear out even when using best practices. I have some that have lasted many years and I have had some that only made it a year. > Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of > destroying your hard drive. Is this true? I would venture to say there is much more wear and tear on a fragmented file if you don't defrag. > It is not so much that you're running defrag as it is disk usage. > Anything that heavily accesses the disk can eventually cause wear and tear [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of >> destroying your hard drive. Is this true? Yes. The heads have to move all over the place to link together a fragmented file and the system has to do this all the time whereas a defrag operation may take an hour and result in much reduced head movement for weeks. >I would venture to say there is much more wear and tear on a fragmented >file if you don't defrag. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>> Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of >>> destroying your hard drive. Is this true? Well said ! ...as I read down through this thread, I was poised to make exactly this point, and found that you already have ! This would also have been my contention i.e. a regularly defragmented hd results in significantly reduced hard-disk "voice coil type" actuator activity across the next few weeks. regards, Richard > Yes. The heads have to move all over the place to link together a > fragmented file and the system has to do this all the time whereas a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>>> Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of >>>> destroying your hard drive. Is this true? That's as bad as being told that turning the pc on and off will wreck it(wear it out). IF that is so then why have power buttons on computers? > It is not so much that you're running defrag as it is disk usage. > Anything that heavily accesses the disk can eventually cause wear and tear [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of >> destroying your hard drive. Is this true? Rick I have always used Disk Defragmenter a fair bit. It is over 10 years since I had my only hard disk failure. The disk was under warranty and replaced free of charge. New disks are just as likely to fail as old ones.  SignatureHope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of > destroying your hard drive. Is this true? there is one thing you should keep in mind and that is if your disk is pretty filled up with data and you have very low disk space, then there is a lot of burden on the hard drive. but if you have lots of harddisk space, then run the defrag as much as your little heart desires. eventually you will come to realize that defragging takes time and is not always needed especially with large capacity disks. Signaturedb·´¯`·...¸><)))º> > Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of > destroying your hard drive. Is this true? That as bad as being told not to turn the pc off because it will break it > Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of > destroying your hard drive. Is this true? > That as bad as being told not to turn the pc off because it will break it >> Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of >> destroying your hard drive. Is this true? Defrag only when necessary. Now define "necessary." <g> One solution is to use the command line: defrag <drive> -a -v (-a for analyze only, -v for verbose) which will quickly tell you how defragmented your drive is and the MS suggestion as to whether defragging is recommended or not. Bill Bill You can have two different scenarios. A preponderance of greatly fragmented files that you never access and greatly fragmented files that you frequently access. In generall you are more likely to see the second scenario. The numbers game is not a good guide on the need to defragment as it fails to distinguish between important files and those which do not matter. ~~~~ Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> That as bad as being told not to turn the pc off because it will >>> Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bill That is one of the nice things about some of the third-party defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk. They give you choices between defragmentation strategies based on things like frequency of access or high performance, etc. > Bill > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> >> Bill > That is one of the nice things about some of the third-party > defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk. They give you choices [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> need to defragment as it fails to distinguish between important >> files and those which do not matter. From what I've read, so does MS. That's why apps like NOrton can report say 33% fragmented and tell you to defrag, but MS's defrag will tell you it's not needed. Supposedly it looks at the how often accessed flags. I've never heard of anything that determines how "important" a file is to anything; not sure I'd trust that sort of a judgement to software. My 2 ¢ >> ~~~~ >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>> >>> Bill The MS XP defragger actually tells you to defrag if the MFT and PF ar fragmented, but there's nothing it can do to defragment those regardles of number of passes it makes. But it recognizes that those files ar 'important' and their fragmentation will reduce performance. That' where Diskeeper steps in- it has the ability to defrag both the files among a host of other features. Twayne;768749 Wrote: > > That is one of the nice things about some of the third-party > > defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk. They give you choices [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > >>> > >>> Bil -- Aevi Twayne That's why you should ignore "MS's defrag will tell you it's not needed." You should select View Report and look at the real situation. However, it's not just a matter of frequently accessed files. You will normally not need to access System Restore restore points but if left fragmented their size, will on a disk with limited free disk space, cause fragmentation of other files, which are in active use. It's questionable whether you want any Norton product on your computer. Perfect Disk is I suspect more highly rated but there is really no need to pay for a third party defragmenter. SignatureHope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> That is one of the nice things about some of the third-party >> defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk. They give you choices [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >>> Enquire, plan and execute >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Twayne I am Twayne: I did not write what's below. It is misquoted by someone apparently ignorant of such things. Since the dummy trying to pose as me knows so much, I wonder why he didn't post a solution? 3rd party apps are the easiest, but it CAN be done without them by basically turning off/moving the PF, starting in Safe Mode, and defrag the hard drive, then turn the page file back on and set it up. Once the files are defragged and contiguous, then the PF will have to be the same and will be the same; contiguous. Caveat: If you're not familiar with how to do this effectively and moving the swap file around, don't do it; you'll have less than satisfactory results. Better to use a trusted 3rd party app. HTH Twayne, the real one. > That's why you should ignore "MS's defrag will tell you it's not > needed." Untrue: MS's defrag will indeed tell you a defrag is needed, when it is needed and is causing too many waits during accesses. You should select View Report and look at the real situation. Yes, assuming you're talking about Defrag's report. BUT, you will still need to be experienced enough to know whether the fragmented files are a problem yet or not. Depding on what I'm doing, I defrag monthly. But, if I'm doing something that creates zillions of temporary files such as design work, or especially video editing and rendering, I do so more often. Video work in fact requires a defrag every day, sometimes more often, depending on what's going on with any particular drive. Those are good reasons to keep a separate working partition for design/video etc. types of work; they defrag faster and don't mess with the boot drive much. It's a matter of learning your machine and experience, mostly. > However, it's not just a matter of frequently accessed files. You will > normally not need to access System Restore restore points but if left > fragmented their size, will on a disk with limited free disk space, > cause fragmentation of other files, which are in active use. Existing Restore Points will have zero impact on fragmentation. Fragmentation only happens when data is written TO the drive. The total space used for restore points, although excessive IMO, is limited and they do not grow uncontrollably. > It's questionable whether you want any Norton product on your > computer. Perfect Disk is I suspect more highly rated but there is > really no need to pay for a third party defragmenter. It's none of your business to comment on what anyone else had decided to use on their computers. I'm sure I could say the same about some of the apps you use too, but even if the opportunity arose and you asked for assistance, I wouldn't tell you to trash it unless it was actually rogue or malicious somehow. Norton, BTW, has an excellent ability to open up the area where a PF wants to live, and makes it easy to create a continguous PF. Norton's defrag app is also far form the only feature provided by their software package; in fact, it's a small part of it. Symantec's Norton Ghost is pretty decent as is their firewall app. But you don't know that because you allowed Norton to slow down your computer by bad setups and probably have no idea what it's capable of. That's fine with me. The only app I'm using right now is Ghost, but it's a great app with True Image running a very close second. But you won't know that either because of your parrot/misattribution mentality. Learn to quote properly. Flame away; I won't be wasting ether on you for awhile to come. >>> That is one of the nice things about some of the third-party >>> defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk. They give you choices [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >>>> Enquire, plan and execute >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Twayne > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Since the dummy trying to pose as me knows so much, I wonder why he >didn't post a solution? BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That "dummy" wasn't attributing what you quote to YOU... it was Gerry ADDRESSING what you quoted TO you. You are the apparent "ignorant" one here. Twayne or Whoever >> Twayne > > I am Twayne: I did not write what's below. It is misquoted by > someone apparently ignorant of such things. That's irrelevant so far as I am concened. > Since the dummy trying to pose as me knows so much, I wonder why he > didn't post a solution? 3rd party apps are the easiest, but it CAN be > done without them by basically turning off/moving the PF, starting in > Safe Mode, and defrag the hard drive, then turn the page file back on > and set it up. Once the files are defragged and contiguous, then the > PF will have to be the same and will be the same; contiguous. Not necessarily true. It depends on the way the pagefile is managed. If managed by Windows it will not stay contiguous. A fixed ie. minimum=maximum pagefile will be immovable and if contiguous it will stay contiguous, unless or until you change the pagefile setting. > Caveat: If you're not familiar with how to do this effectively and > moving the swap file around, don't do it; you'll have less than > satisfactory results. I presently have a contiguous pagefile created without using a third party utility. >Better to use a trusted 3rd party app. If you have money to burn. > HTH > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Untrue: MS's defrag will indeed tell you a defrag is needed, when it > is needed and is causing too many waits during accesses. My statement was true just as your one is; because we are referring to opposite sides of the same coin. > You should select View Report and look at the real situation. > > Yes, assuming you're talking about Defrag's report. BUT, you will > still need to be experienced enough to know whether the fragmented > files are a problem yet or not. It really does not matter if you run Disk Defragmenter more often than might be absolutely necessary. Besides it's running Disk CleanUp or the like before running Disk Deframenter, which when carried out together, combine to bring benefits.. > Depding on what I'm doing, I defrag monthly. But, if I'm doing > something that creates zillions of temporary files such as design [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > etc. types of work; they defrag faster and don't mess with the boot > drive much. I would agree with this line of thought. Benefits can accrue if you remove files that fragment rapidly from the windows partition. >It's a matter of learning your machine and experience, > mostly. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Existing Restore Points will have zero impact on fragmentation. Incorrect. > Fragmentation only happens when data is written TO the drive. True. > The > total space used for restore points, although excessive IMO, is > limited and they do not grow uncontrollably. Restore points can be of some size. They are created automatically daily and if you install Windows Update. Their impact on fragmentation will be more significant when there is limited free disk space. >> It's questionable whether you want any Norton product on your >> computer. Perfect Disk is I suspect more highly rated but there is >> really no need to pay for a third party defragmenter. > > It's none of your business to comment on what anyone else had decided > to use on their computers. Irrelevant. >I'm sure I could say the same about some > of the apps you use too, but even if the opportunity arose and you > asked for assistance, I wouldn't tell you to trash it unless it was > actually rogue or malicious somehow. I did not suggest trashing Diskeeper. > Norton, BTW, has an excellent ability to open up the area where a PF > wants to live, and makes it easy to create a continguous PF. Norton's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > don't know that because you allowed Norton to slow down your computer > by bad setups and probably have no idea what it's capable of. A lot of users have dumped Norton when they realised the way it adversely impacts on system performance. >That's > fine with me. The only app I'm using right now is Ghost, but it's a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Learn to quote properly. Flame away; I won't be wasting ether on you > for awhile to come. I am only interested in correcting what I see as incorect statements made in the last post. I am not interested in trading personal abuse. SignatureHope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I've spent more time than I care to remember - fighting with pagefile.sys's. Specifically getting, and keeping, the damned things contigous, (offline defrags' etc), and trying to keep them that way, ...i.e. tinkering with "fixed size" pagefile.sys's. I think it was on aumha.org where one described strategy was to set a fixed 60mb swap-file on the XP boot drive, (because XP does not like there to be no swap-file at all on its' boot-drive), and the larger, (1.5 x's the amount of memory in the box / XP default size), (2nd) main swapfile on the 1st drive on 2nd hard disk. Across the years, I've found this strategy does "smooth" things out a little, and under some conditions there is a small but noticeable performance benefit e.g. XP can be skittering around doing what it want's with its' swap-file on 2nd hd, whilst the boot-drive is simultaneosly doing other things - .... - depending of course on what you're doing on your PC ! regards, Richard > Twayne or Whoever > [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > I am only interested in correcting what I see as incorect statements made > in the last post. I am not interested in trading personal abuse. > Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of > destroying your hard drive. Is this true? The more fragmented a drive is, the more new or changed files will be written fragmented, so fragmentation breeds fragmentation. Defragging all of the seldom-accessed files only has to be done once, then they are not going to cause further fragmentation and are not going to inflate the % files fragmented in the report, and do not themselves require defragging again. Let the defrag utility decide when to defrag -- when fragmentation is low it won't defrag and so will cause no wear on the drive, when it is needed it will do it's stuff but only on the fragmented files, and thus reduce unnecessary wear on the drive. Neglected fragmentation is probably the main cause of computers getting slower and slower until intolerable. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.