Windows XP SP3. I run Disk Defragmenter (both in Safe Mode and out) on C Drive and it runs for 10 to 15 minutes then tells me Defragmentation is complete. Except that the graphic representation of the files looks about the same as when I started, that is, very fragmented and when I ask it to analyze it tells me the drive needs to be defragmented. So I do it again…and again.
So, like all Windows stuff, I know there’s the simple way it tells you to do something which doesn’t work, then there’s the secret way, that may work which you have to learn in a forum from an expert. Anyone care to share the secret way to defrag a hard drive with Windows Disk Defragmenter or an alternative?
Probably what you are seeing are system restore points, the swap file and the hibernation file, which don’t get defragmented by basic defragmenters. I usually dump all the old restore points, then create one new one before defragmenting.
Along with using a third party defragmenter like mentioned above you should also ensure that you have adequate free space. Most defragmenters suggest having at least 20%. If you don’t have that much many will not run properly.
Defragmenters use free space to temporarily move files to rearrange the data to make contiguous files. Without free space it can’t operate, or at least it can’t operate efficiently.
Modern deframentation doesn’t worry about putting things next to each other. It’s a myth that having everything grouped together is better. All that matters is that the files themselves are together, and that there’s enough space to make a new file of normal size. Any larger files are files you don’t load into memory all at once, and thus a few fragments will not slow your computer down.
Heck, there’s a pretty good argument that NTFS doesn’t ever need to be degfragmented unless you are using nearly all of your drive space or utilize the compression method.
Vista or Windows 7? Manually defragging is a waste of your time. The system will rejoin contiguous files in the background periodically, and automatically defrag all files 20 MB or lower when opened, and frankly, that’s 99.9% of the solution right there.
And of course if you have a SSD you definitely do not want to defrag. Windows 7 is smart enough to take care of that automatically, I’m not sure about Vista.
No it isn’t. Most hard drives still have a moving read/write head, and it takes time for that head to move from one side of the disc to the other. If you need to read a bunch of files in rapid succession, it will be much faster if they’re all physically located in the same area of the disc.
Way, way back when Microsoft first introduced NTFS, I remember reading - probably in Byte or Dr Jobbs - an article showing how NTFS was somewhat resilient to fragmentation. Not resistant, but resilient. A couple of extents (fragmented bits) did not affect performance.
It’s not a myth, and modern defragmentation does “worry” about putting things together. Advanced defragmenters today often perform “disk optimization” which puts frequently accessed files in the fastest readable part of the disk. Further, they are tasked with ensuring that files that change size frequently have enough space to do so without writing to a new part of the disk.
Then there is the issue of “free space defragmentation” - this ensures that there is enough contiguous free space to write new files without having to create fragments.
While the modern NTFS construct is better at handling fragmentation, the explosion of home media has created new challenges.
If you use your PC for light work and browsing the web and always maintain 50% free space you probably won’t have an issue. But if you’re like most people and now store movies, music and HD images and are trying to make the most of your HDD then you still need to defrag.
Single HD videos on a PC can be split into tens or hundreds of thousands of fragments.
Why? what’s so different about NTFS under XP vs. NTFS under Vista/7?
cite?
and as far as “HD videos” go, who gives a shit? the max bitrate of ATSC is 2.4 megabytes per second. Blu-ray maxes out at 5 megabytes per second. Fragmentation isn’t an issue.
As for your comment “who gives a shit?” - I do. What you clearly don’t understand is that it’s not just about how files play (especially ones that are cached), but how it slows down the computer as a whole.
That includes copying those files, backing them up, running anti-virus or one of 50 other processes. If the HDD has to waste time searching all over the disk (for the file or the free space to write it) then it can’t do other processes as quickly. It’s pretty common sense and there are dozens of tests you can perform for yourself on your own PC that will show the significant performance gains from defragmentation.
Most people use their computers for other things besides watching films. Fragmentation may not slow down video playback in particular but it can certainly affect system performance generally.
A little off topic, but with most defraggers, can you set the work space on another drive if you have 2 physical hdd’s? I used to defrag manually from time to time, but I can’t remember ever having this option - or at least, not using it.
Also, and really off topic, the best way to get speed from hdd’s is to use a RAID configuration.
Most modern motherboards already have a built in RAID controller and HDDs are pretty inexpensive now days. I agree that if you’re planning on running SCSI or SAS then the cost may be a bit more, but for most home PCs the onboard RAID controller with a couple of drives isn’t too expensive. I personally run 2 SSDs in RAID 0 on my home PC using the onboard RAID controller. The cost wasn’t huge and the performance gain is tremendous. It usually takes longer for the BIOS portion of the boot process than the Windows start time once it starts.
Aren’t there some people who are of the opinion that putting SSD’s in RAID doesn’t result in a performance boost. I never followed the arguments closely, but it seems to me that data striping would have to be beneficial regardless of the media.
Would you be able to say if the increase is mostly linear - as in 2 drives = twice as fast, 3 ==> 3x, etc.? I would imagine that at some point you would have to hit a wall, but IDK. Thanks.