disk defragmentor

External Since: Jun 15, 2007 Posts: 310

Debated upon whether I would get into this ridiculous argument, but:
I'll just add this comment, which happens to coincide with most of the
material on the subject. [Oh boy another web page]

Fragmentation happens to cause significant impact upon hard drives,
particularly in the NT/XP environment as files are not stored in the fashion
one would [non-informed] generally think off.

Ponder upon these overly simplified explanations:

Many files are created or modified each time their application is run or
accessed, and the system does not use the next available hard drive space to
place those file segments/additions, but may place them in any unused space
on the disk. This creates files which might extend from the base address
[fat address or MFT] to anywhere else on the partition handled by jump
instructions or other, which indicates the location of the next segment
needed. These may once again be jumped to the next segment that may actually
be at the opposite end of the disk/partition. Picture that happening several
dozen times during the access of that one file. During this time, the hard
drive controller, OS, and the algorithms used, may place other segments
elsewhere on the disk, either temporarily or permanently.
Think of a large file and picture the number of additional head movements
needed to access JUST that one file and the extra time [additional
nanoseconds] needed, then consider that there are likely a dozen or more
additional files [dlls and other exes, etc.] needed for that one application
which are also fragmented taking that same whipping head motion picking up a
fragment here and there...
Now let's picture that application has a data base of information, new
information is added to that base but is stored wherever it was created.
After running that same application and saving those new bits of data, that
data base now exists in several thousand non-contiguous sectors of the hard
drive. To view or access that data base ALL those segments must be found and
brought together for the visual display, so these scattered bits are
temporarily collected in the swap file and/or memory.
All of this, of course, takes more head movement and time than if the files
were contiguous and the application's other needed files were also closer
together.

A good indication is when intermittent Windows errors begin to show up for
some reason or hard drive access times become excessive. If one goes to Safe
Mode, shuts off Windows handling of virtual memory [swap] then deletes the
win386.swp file after a restart in DOS, restarts to Safe mode and defrags,
then turns ON Windows management when done; restarting to Windows Normal
Mode and behavior will be noticeably improved. Part of the reason is that
the SWAP file is no longer scattered all over the disk, and is contiguous
[Fat systems]. NT's defragmentation is of course different as are the
results..

Regarding new installations and defragging:

A major misconception is that a newly installed OS is defragmented and
arraigned closely on the disk. As the files are expanded areas of the disk,
various areas are used to hold temporary copies of those files in any
available area of the disk. Each file may first be copied, then expanded,
then added to the proper directory; or may be placed in temporary storage
pending installation order, then placed with some directory [listed as part
of].
Each time the file is written, it takes up space on the drive, which may or
may not be the next contiguous area, and may be some scattered areas upon
the disk [other segments of files may already be using an area which might
have been used].
The directories themselves [via the table] assign the "base" area then list
the various temporary and permanent locations of the files listed under the
various directories. Nothing at this stage requires these files are actually
assigned an area of the disk in which all the directory's files are located
within a specific segment of the disk, e.g., one file after the other or one
sector after the other. Continuing to use a newly installed disk without
ever defragmenting it, will eventually cause errors and at minimum, slower
loading times; noticeable after extended usage.

The first defragmentation done on a disk attempts to align the various
individual segments of the files into contiguous areas/segments. If one has
used something like "Align for faster Windows Loading" [MSDeFrag - not a
recommended setting}, then the files are arraigned according to the
monitored access, space required while running, and other factors held
[created by taskmon] in C:\WINDOWS\APPLOG\ and using Logitec Mouse as
example LOGI_MWX.LGC to supposedly place the file in an area conducive to
its loading and any additional space it might require while loading/running
[some exe files temporarily expand on disk and become fragmented in the
process]. IF this is a fairly new system or taskmon has been disabled then
the files will NOT be arraigned properly as there is not enough saved
details.
Successive deframentations generally take less time, and decrease file
movement.. Watch a defragment tool: it checks the fats, then folders; then
files, and only adjusts what has or is fragmented [unless one uses the Align
for Faster Windows which WILL constantly move files around based upon the
logic files {which is why its not recommended}]

Now, should any wish to complain this provides no conclusive proof, then
they should get off their dead behinds and actually look at a fragmemented
disk and defragmented disk with a hex/disk editor. THEN come back and post,
maybe someone will listen, though I doubt it ...
Or if you like visuals displays, then run MS Defrag and look at the
details,, and watch it move files around trying to place all the file
segments together.

The short answer is: defragmentation can decrease OS access times and
reduce wear and tear on your hard disk. Load times ARE NOT a definitive
display of problems with defragmentation, but with the routines used, and
INCLUDING a fragmented swap file.

--

MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
_________

External Since: Dec 15, 2003 Posts: 1417

Lord Turkey Breath, who defragged a hard drive once and now thinks he is an expert
on disk defragmenters, wrote in message
news:8l2tj.297$St5.134@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Tilly821" wrote in message news:Tilly821.34s9bc@DoNotSpam.com...
>>
>> snip
>> Here is a true independent whitepaper:
>> http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/IDC_Defrag_WhitePaper_2003.pdf
>> Conducted by IDC (International Data Corporation) and sponsered by
>> American Business Research Corporation. Both are reputable companies.
>> (Its about Diskeeper, so of course they would want to include it on
>> their site.
>
> The are buisnesses who's only reason de etre is to make money any
> which way they can.
> http://www.idg.com/www/HomeNew.nsf/docs/corporate_profile
>
> Their 'research' is about as reliable as the nutritional information on
> a packe of sausasges.
> snip

Your bad spelling aside, you now reveal to the readers here your desperation to make
yourself appear correct. What you hope to prove by linking the corporate profile of
IDG in fact proves the opposite. IDG is a respected publisher and promoter of IT
conferences. Among their IT related publications are: Australian Macworld,
Australian PC World, CIO Magazine, Computer Dealer News, Computerworld, PC World,
and a couple hundred more similar publications and associated websites.
http://www.idg.com/www/HomeNew.nsf/docs/Brands
http://www.idg.com/www/idgproducts.nsf/typeform?readform&type=publication

Similarly, American Business Research Corporation has sponsored a large number of
surveys, polls, and reports used by IT departments, among others.

Your ridiculous contention throughout this thread that we should disregard any
reports by companies that make defragmenters because they are in the business of
selling disk defragmenters, is as asinine as saying we should disregard all
information about viruses from anti-virus software companies because they are in the
business of selling anti-virus software.

As I stated earlier in the thread, the effects of defragmenting on performance will
vary depending upon the size and free space of the drive as well as the type of
files frequently created or modified. Your blanket contention that defragmenters
are of no use is, like most generalizations and blanket proclamations, absurd
because it does not consider any disk usage pattern other than your own.

I think the readers here can easily see how little such a generalization is worth.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm