Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is FREE

Jim G

On Dec 6, 9:41*am, "the_constructor"
wrote:
Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is FREE

Jim G

http://www.piriform.com/defraggler

Does it for me.

"airsmoothed" wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 9:41 am, "the_constructor"
wrote:
Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is FREE

Jim G

http://www.piriform.com/defraggler

Does it for me.

And me. But don't make it default.
The defrag question is one of the oldest questions in the known world.
Nobody really knows.

"Mr Pounder" wrote in message
...

"airsmoothed" wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 9:41 am, "the_constructor"
wrote:
Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is FREE

Jim G

http://www.piriform.com/defraggler

Does it for me.

And me. But don't make it default.
The defrag question is one of the oldest questions in the known world.
Nobody really knows.


I would like to thank everyone for their input on this thread. I have
downloaded several of the suggested programs and am currently trying
defragler from pinform.com (as above). After deleting 21,000 emails I left
the program running overnight and my PC now has speeded up no end.

Thanks again to everyone

Jim G

"the_constructor" wrote in message
o.uk...
Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is FREE

Jim G

The WinXP defrag tool is fine but expects to do "a little each time". In
addition you may need to defrag the page file and other system files. What
I do is the following:

1. Make sure that from the "My Computer..." settings, the PageFile has the
same Max and Min size (i.e. cannot grow-and-fragment). With most large hard
drives there is no excuse to skimp on a small PageFile these days.

2. Run the WinXP defrag at least 3 times, preferably more. If you've hardly
ever defragged, create a batch file and leave it running in the background
to run it say 10 times.

3. Download "Pagedefrag" from Microsoft (search for "Sysinternals defrag") -
this is a boot-time utility which you schedule and it defrags the system AND
OTHER files. Do NOT run this before you've run WinXP defrag because
otherwise it will sit their defragmenting your entire drive and take days -
you use WinXP defrag to ensure there is not much for PageDefrag to do on
boot up.

4. Create a Scheduled Task so that each week (1am Sat morning say) to run
WinXP defrag 3 times, then schedule a PageDefrag and reboot the box to
trigger the PageDefrag. This will keep the hard-drive nice and packed.

Paul DS.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:38:59 -0000, "Paul D Smith"
wrote:

"the_constructor" wrote in message
news:PtudnRX6sdapfkDTnZ2dnUVZ7tmdnZ2d@brightview .co.uk...
Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is FREE

Jim G

The WinXP defrag tool is fine but expects to do "a little each time". In
addition you may need to defrag the page file and other system files.
What
I do is the following:

1. Make sure that from the "My Computer..." settings, the PageFile has the
same Max and Min size (i.e. cannot grow-and-fragment). With most large
hard
drives there is no excuse to skimp on a small PageFile these days.

Can you suggest a size for that Max/Min setting, for a computer
running XP with 1 Gb RAM, used mostly for Internet browsing, e-mail
etc, i.e. not heavily into games, CAD, music or large databases?

If you have not fixed the size before, then the PageFile will have "chosen"
its own size already. I normally look to see what it is currently, add
about another 1GB for headroom and fix at that. You can reduce the headroom
if you have a smallish disk but the current value will be a reasonable
approximation to the most you use so you probably want a little extra above
the current size.

The key thing is to set the min and max the same before all the defragging -
a fragmented PageFile is a complete performance killer on Windows.

BTW, unless your computer is of the "latest and greatest" variant, eBay is
often a good source of cheap "upgrade" memory. WinXP can handle up to 4GB
(if you have the slots to put it into) and even going from 1GB to 2GB will
make quite a difference (after defragging too).

Paul DS.

On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:41:10 -0000
"the_constructor" wrote:

Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is
FREE

Jim G



Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.
--
Davey.

Davey wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:41:10 -0000
"the_constructor" wrote:

Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is
FREE

Jim G



Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

well you maybe should occasionally..

Just tar up the data in single user mode and shove it in a partition
elsewhere, delete the partition and reinstall it :-)

Make sure that the tools you need are NOT in te same partition though....

IF you go for a reasonably static / /usr and /lib ..and /opt for those
that must..

then /var and /home contain the only 'moving data'

So they can be deleted and resinstalled ad infinitum.

On Dec 6, 12:27*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Davey wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:41:10 -0000
"the_constructor" wrote:

Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is
FREE

Jim G

Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

well you maybe should occasionally..

Just tar up the data in single user mode and shove it in a partition
elsewhere, delete the partition and reinstall it :-)

Make sure that the tools you need are NOT in te same partition though....

IF you go for a reasonably static / /usr and /lib ..and /opt for those
that must..

then /var and /home contain the only 'moving data'

So they can be deleted and resinstalled ad infinitum.

Can't you just home on its own partition and do your work on cooler
running?

Davey wrote:

On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:41:10 -0000
"the_constructor" wrote:

Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is
FREE

Jim G



Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

That's a bit of an old beard's tale. Classic unix filesystems like EXT2 are
quite good at mitigating the effects of fragmentation, but they still
fragment.

EXT2 has an offline defrag tool, EXT3 has no available defrag tool[1]

[1] It can be downgaded to EXT2 and use that tool, but if there is any EXT3
specific metadata, it will get eaten.

EXT4 supports online defrag as does XFS and probably others.

It's a PITA when your linux server is running on a virtual platform and you
really would like to compact the filesystem, and zero out the rest of the
fre space in order to take advantage of thin (sparse) disk arrays (ie your
zero blocks do not actually occupy any real disk space until they get used).

Cheers

Tim

--
Tim Watts

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:03:16 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:
Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

That's a bit of an old beard's tale. Classic unix filesystems like EXT2
are quite good at mitigating the effects of fragmentation, but they
still fragment.

If only Windows used ext2! Users would have needed to format and
reinstall everything long before fragmentation was an issue ;-)

Jules Richardson wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:03:16 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:
Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

That's a bit of an old beard's tale. Classic unix filesystems like EXT2
are quite good at mitigating the effects of fragmentation, but they
still fragment.

If only Windows used ext2! Users would have needed to format and
reinstall everything long before fragmentation was an issue ;-)

Interestingly, NTFS was inspired (not dure how much) by the featureset on
the VMS native filesystem Files-11/ODS-2. Where I was at uni, they used to
run a regular defrag on that with a tool called RABBIT.

--
Tim Watts

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

Interestingly, NTFS was inspired (not dure how much) by the featureset on
the VMS native filesystem Files-11/ODS-2. Where I was at uni, they used to
run a regular defrag on that with a tool called RABBIT.

Well they needed to get the maximum performance out of the machine and
defragging made disk access quicker.
It makes disk access quicker on OSX, linux and windows too but people
probably don't notice on most tasks these days.

A defrag will certainly make boot times quicker and is probably the only
time an average user will notice.

Defragging used to be more effective too, at one time you actually knew how
the data was arranged on the disk so you could move the data about to
specific areas, now you don't know and can only guess.

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:56:02 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Jules Richardson wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:03:16 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:
Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

That's a bit of an old beard's tale. Classic unix filesystems like
EXT2 are quite good at mitigating the effects of fragmentation, but
they still fragment.

If only Windows used ext2! Users would have needed to format and
reinstall everything long before fragmentation was an issue ;-)

Interestingly, NTFS was inspired (not dure how much) by the featureset
on the VMS native filesystem Files-11/ODS-2. Where I was at uni, they
used to run a regular defrag on that with a tool called RABBIT.

Which was produced by the people who used to (not sure, now) produce an
NTFS defragmenter.

There is a *lot* of commonality between ODS-2 and NTFS. I have documents
somewhere on the internals of both.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

Tim Watts wrote:
EXT2 has an offline defrag tool, EXT3 has no available defrag tool[1]

It's a PITA when your linux server is running on a virtual platform and you
really would like to compact the filesystem, and zero out the rest of the
fre space in order to take advantage of thin (sparse) disk arrays (ie your
zero blocks do not actually occupy any real disk space until they get used).

You could resize2fs it down (works with ext3 and probably ext4 too) and
then resize2fs it back up again...

Theo

Theo Markettos wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:
EXT2 has an offline defrag tool, EXT3 has no available defrag tool[1]

It's a PITA when your linux server is running on a virtual platform and
you really would like to compact the filesystem, and zero out the rest of
the fre space in order to take advantage of thin (sparse) disk arrays (ie
your zero blocks do not actually occupy any real disk space until they
get used).

You could resize2fs it down (works with ext3 and probably ext4 too) and
then resize2fs it back up again...

Theo

Ah - I had overlooked the possibilty of resizing down. Ironic as I've been
using resize2fs all week to up that capacity on some tiny filesystems.

Thanks for that!

--
Tim Watts

On Dec 6, 4:03*pm, Tim Watts wrote:
Davey wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:41:10 -0000
"the_constructor" wrote:

Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is
FREE

Jim G

Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

That's a bit of an old beard's tale. Classic unix filesystems like EXT2 are
quite good at mitigating the effects of fragmentation, but they still
fragment.

EXT2 has an offline defrag tool, EXT3 has no available defrag tool[1]

[1] It can be downgaded to EXT2 and use that tool, but if there is any EXT3
specific metadata, it will get eaten.

EXT4 supports online defrag as does XFS and probably others.

It's a PITA when your linux server is running on a virtual platform and you
really would like to compact the filesystem, and zero out the rest of the
fre space in order to take advantage of thin (sparse) disk arrays (ie your
zero blocks do not actually occupy any real disk space until they get used).

Cheers

Tim

Copy contents of disk a to disk b. Simples.


NT

NT wrote:

On Dec 6, 4:03 pm, Tim Watts wrote:
Davey wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:41:10 -0000
"the_constructor" wrote:

Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is
FREE

Jim G

Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

That's a bit of an old beard's tale. Classic unix filesystems like EXT2
are quite good at mitigating the effects of fragmentation, but they still
fragment.

EXT2 has an offline defrag tool, EXT3 has no available defrag tool[1]

[1] It can be downgaded to EXT2 and use that tool, but if there is any
[EXT3
specific metadata, it will get eaten.

EXT4 supports online defrag as does XFS and probably others.

It's a PITA when your linux server is running on a virtual platform and
you really would like to compact the filesystem, and zero out the rest of
the fre space in order to take advantage of thin (sparse) disk arrays (ie
your zero blocks do not actually occupy any real disk space until they
get used).

Cheers

Tim

Copy contents of disk a to disk b. Simples.


NT

Fractionally less simple when

a) it's yer root filesystem
or
b) It's 4.5TB!!

;-o
--
Tim Watts

On Dec 10, 7:42*pm, Tim Watts wrote:
NT wrote:
On Dec 6, 4:03 pm, Tim Watts wrote:
Davey wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:41:10 -0000
"the_constructor" wrote:

Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is
FREE

Jim G

Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

That's a bit of an old beard's tale. Classic unix filesystems like EXT2
are quite good at mitigating the effects of fragmentation, but they still
fragment.

EXT2 has an offline defrag tool, EXT3 has no available defrag tool[1]

[1] It can be downgaded to EXT2 and use that tool, but if there is any
[EXT3
specific metadata, it will get eaten.

EXT4 supports online defrag as does XFS and probably others.

It's a PITA when your linux server is running on a virtual platform and
you really would like to compact the filesystem, and zero out the rest of
the fre space in order to take advantage of thin (sparse) disk arrays (ie
your zero blocks do not actually occupy any real disk space until they
get used).

Cheers

Tim

Copy contents of disk a to disk b. Simples.

NT

Fractionally less simple when

a) it's yer root filesystem

Which OS cant be copied? I know xp onward objects to a new root drive,
I dont know if copying it back solves that.


or
b) It's 4.5TB!!

;-o

Doable, but not quick With FAT32 its faster than defragging , I
dont know about the more modern FSes though.

I remember once checking a 60G FAT32 disc that was pretty much full
and used faily heavily for a couple of years, to find it was only 1.2%
fragmented. Since then I've not worried too much about fragmentation.


NT

Huge wrote:

On 2011-12-06, Tim Watts wrote:

It's a PITA when your linux server is running on a virtual platform and
you really would like to compact the filesystem, and zero out the rest of
the fre space in order to take advantage of thin (sparse) disk arrays (ie
your zero blocks do not actually occupy any real disk space until they
get used).

So run Solaris ... )



How does that help?

--
Tim Watts

Huge wrote:

On 2011-12-06, Tim Watts wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2011-12-06, Tim Watts wrote:

It's a PITA when your linux server is running on a virtual platform and
you really would like to compact the filesystem, and zero out the rest
of the fre space in order to take advantage of thin (sparse) disk
arrays (ie your zero blocks do not actually occupy any real disk space
until they get used).

So run Solaris ... )



How does that help?

It uses sparse files everywhere by default.




Ok - I did not know that ;-

I'm looking forward to SANS supporting that new SCSI command that can unmap
a block...
--
Tim Watts

In article , Huge wrote:

So run Solaris ... )


And ZFS?

Got bitten by that last week - 40 million files in a filesystem, 15% free
space = sick machine. Snapshots taking *hours*, write performance - well,
there wasn't really any

Cleared out a few GB of space and it's sorted but Solaris isn't completely
immune to fragmentation :-)

Darren

D.M.Chapman wrote:
In article , Huge wrote:
So run Solaris ... )


And ZFS?

Got bitten by that last week - 40 million files in a filesystem, 15% free
space = sick machine. Snapshots taking *hours*, write performance - well,
there wasn't really any

Cleared out a few GB of space and it's sorted but Solaris isn't completely
immune to fragmentation :-)


Exactly. Once the disk getsup to 85% or so then it starts to fall
part..BUut at that usage level, you should be looking at more disk space
anyway.


Thats when we started to look at the '4 times bigger disk to tack on the
system and work out which directory trees to move to it.


I used to run a usenet news server. The news files get..very big. And in
the end we ended up with the data on one disk, the history on another,
and the operating system on a third..well till we RAIDED it and then the
RAID took care of all the smarts..lord knows where the data actually was
- on whatever disk was nearest I suppose..it was full of its own RAM and
CPU and sorted itself out ....
Darren

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Davey wrote:

On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:41:10 -0000
"the_constructor" wrote:

Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.
Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.
Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is
FREE

Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

Switch to a Mac, then never defrag ever again.


same coments as Liux. You still need to.
But its a lot less frequently needed and a lot less hassle.


Amazing the ****e that Windows users put up with and think is "normal".


BSOD...:-)

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Davey wrote:

On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:41:10 -0000
"the_constructor" wrote:

Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is
FREE

Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

Switch to a Mac, then never defrag ever again.

MACs defrag in the background.
they move so called hotfiles to defrag them and optimise them.
I guess it means buy windows and you really never *need* to defrag, buy a
MAC and it will always defrag.


Amazing the ****e that Windows users put up with and think is "normal".

Amazing what MAC users don't know.


As a note..

windows on NTFS doesn't need a defrag, ever, it will still work.
However all disk file systems including Linux and MAC can benefit from file
optimisation as it reduces the seeks and hence improves performance.

dennis@home wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Davey wrote:

On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:41:10 -0000
"the_constructor" wrote:

Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is
FREE

Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

Switch to a Mac, then never defrag ever again.

MACs defrag in the background.
they move so called hotfiles to defrag them and optimise them.
I guess it means buy windows and you really never *need* to defrag, buy
a MAC and it will always defrag.


Amazing the ****e that Windows users put up with and think is "normal".

Amazing what MAC users don't know.


As a note..

windows on NTFS doesn't need a defrag, ever, it will still work.
However all disk file systems including Linux and MAC can benefit from
file optimisation as it reduces the seeks and hence improves performance.

This is worth a read and the follow on article.

http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/ind..._defragmenting

It makes the very good point that *nix was conceived initially as a
multiuser system so lots of people altering files in a random fashion
was considered at the start.

I have to say I never de frag. Linus these days. I DID run into issue
with what turned out to be an enormous firefox history file that screwed
up firefox opening windows. I deleted te history entirely. I domnt need
to know where I was two years ago If I didn't bookmark it It wan;'t with
being there in the first place.

However I HAVE as part of disk upgrades defragged by save/restore onto
new hardware older *nix machines, and a full and fragged disk is for
sure a bit slower than a brand new half full defragged one.

What really counts in *nix though is te dis access deamins: They
maintain a list of things that need to be written to disk and things
that seem likely to need reading from disk, and they do optimised passes
over the disk all the time to dump 'what's nearest, first'. And every
ounce of spare ram caches the disk especially its directory and inode
structures. More ram reduces the need for multiple disk seeks.

But as with most things *nix, when running well, leave well alone. The
OD understands fragging and works hard not to do it to start with, and
later on, how to not let it result in slower access times.

It used to be you had to RESERVE ram for caching...and sockets,,.and
stuff. No longer. Its all done for you by algorithms that are far
smarter than you are - until you have spent a few weeks understanding
the system..

On 06/12/2011 14:14, dennis@home wrote:

windows on NTFS doesn't need a defrag, ever, it will still work.
However all disk file systems including Linux and MAC can benefit from
file optimisation as it reduces the seeks and hence improves performance.

Stick your O.S. (Mac,Windows,linux etc) and prog. files on a SSD and
"seek time" doesn't exist so no matter how fragmented your files
performance will never be reduced.

It's worth going to a drive that gives you plenty of spare space though
as modern drives distribute the associated "wear" of writing across all
un-written blocks.

Regular HDD for storage of "static" files like images, documents, etc
etc and for your temp files will never need de-fragmenting either.


--
http://www.GymRatZ.co.uk - Fitness+Gym Equipment.
http://www.bodysolid-gym-equipment.co.uk
http://www.trade-price-supplements.co.uk
http://www.water-rower.co.uk

On Dec 6, 2:14*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message

...









In article ,
Davey wrote:

On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:41:10 -0000
"the_constructor" wrote:

Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is
FREE

Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

Switch to a Mac, then never defrag ever again.

MACs defrag in the background.
they move so called hotfiles to defrag them and optimise them.
I guess it means buy windows and you really never *need* to defrag, buy a
MAC and it will always defrag.

But it means YOU as an individual doesn;t have to defrag.
The same mhappens when copying a file to and from disc, that's another
way
of defragging but you don;t have to defrag as it's transparent to the
user
and that is the point.




Amazing the ****e that Windows users put up with and think is "normal".

Amazing what MAC users don't know.

I knew. but it's a bit like worryijng that the computers memory is
volatile
so I have to keep refreshing it. It's no big deal for most computer
systems
whether it's UNIX LINUX Mac OS X or windows.
But as it's done without my intervention I don't really need to
consider it.



As a note..

windows on NTFS doesn't need a defrag, ever, it will still work.
However all disk file systems including Linux and MAC can benefit from file
optimisation as it reduces the seeks and hence improves performance.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

MACs defrag in the background.
they move so called hotfiles to defrag them and optimise them.
I guess it means buy windows and you really never *need* to defrag, buy a
MAC and it will always defrag.

But it means YOU as an individual doesn;t have to defrag.
The same mhappens when copying a file to and from disc, that's another
way
of defragging but you don;t have to defrag as it's transparent to the
user
and that is the point.

That's why windows defrags in background too.
If you turn it on.
Its not on by default as it increases power used as the drives don't sleep
as much.


Amazing the ****e that Windows users put up with and think is "normal".

Amazing what MAC users don't know.

I knew. but it's a bit like worryijng that the computers memory is
volatile
so I have to keep refreshing it. It's no big deal for most computer
systems
whether it's UNIX LINUX Mac OS X or windows.
But as it's done without my intervention I don't really need to
consider it.

Other than turning it on windows users don't have to worry either.

On 06/12/2011 14:14, dennis@home wrote:

Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

Switch to a Mac, then never defrag ever again.

MACs defrag in the background.
they move so called hotfiles to defrag them and optimise them.
I guess it means buy windows and you really never *need* to defrag, buy
a MAC and it will always defrag.


Amazing the ****e that Windows users put up with and think is "normal".

Amazing what MAC users don't know.


As a note..

windows on NTFS doesn't need a defrag, ever, it will still work.
However all disk file systems including Linux and MAC can benefit from
file optimisation as it reduces the seeks and hence improves performance.

Nice and clearly put.

So the mac defrags all the time, when you're trying to do something
else, rather than you firing it manually when your machine is idle. I
guess it suits some people.

For those who claim to have a non-fragmenting file system:

Imagine you create 10,000 small files.

Then delete every other one.

How do you _not_ have fragmented free space?

Andy

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:15:27 -0000, Andy Champ
wrote:



For those who claim to have a non-fragmenting file system:

Imagine you create 10,000 small files.

Then delete every other one.

How do you _not_ have fragmented free space?


Quite. But in reality it seems to be files which start small and regularly
increase in size that seem to be the worst offenders. Classics being log
files (e.g. every time something happens, a message gets added to a file).

In a previous existence I spent quite some time trying to optimise the
performance of files and file systems. On hardware of that generation,
files could be accessed using multi-block transfers. And fragmentation put
a major brake on how often that could be exploited. A number of tactics
proved helpful.

But the biggest single improvement was obtained by formatting disc space
using appropriate allocation unit sizes for the files being stored. You do
only waste an average of around half an allocation unit per file.
Temporary files in particular can have huge allocation unit sizes without
actually 'using' any extra disc space (so long as they disappear). This
particular technique is available under Windows. And can be quite
effective. After all, double the allocation unit size and you have half
the maximum possible fragments.

--
Rod

Andy Champ wrote:
On 06/12/2011 14:14, dennis@home wrote:

Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

Switch to a Mac, then never defrag ever again.

MACs defrag in the background.
they move so called hotfiles to defrag them and optimise them.
I guess it means buy windows and you really never *need* to defrag, buy
a MAC and it will always defrag.


Amazing the ****e that Windows users put up with and think is "normal".

Amazing what MAC users don't know.


As a note..

windows on NTFS doesn't need a defrag, ever, it will still work.
However all disk file systems including Linux and MAC can benefit from
file optimisation as it reduces the seeks and hence improves performance.

Nice and clearly put.

So the mac defrags all the time, when you're trying to do something
else, rather than you firing it manually when your machine is idle. I
guess it suits some people.

For those who claim to have a non-fragmenting file system:

Imagine you create 10,000 small files.

Then delete every other one.

How do you _not_ have fragmented free space?


In Linux, that's where you START - with a fully fragmented disk.

The key is the disk access system is geared to make that almost a non
problem.

By spreading files across the space. each one has lots of extension
capability. Its only when the disk gets really full that finding the
best slot to extend to gets sub optimal.

Back that up with clever disk caching and enough RAM and as long as you
are only working on a few files at a time, its like greased lightning.

where it falls over is when you have lots of users or processes all
accessing files, a full disk and not enough RAM.

Which is where specialist disk access daemons come in like those used to
access databases on large systems.



Andy

On 06/12/2011 22:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
In Linux, that's where you START - with a fully fragmented disk.

The key is the disk access system is geared to make that almost a non
problem.

By spreading files across the space. each one has lots of extension
capability. Its only when the disk gets really full that finding the
best slot to extend to gets sub optimal.

So it starts with the disc layout designed to maximise the possible seek
lengths? That seems... odd.


Back that up with clever disk caching and enough RAM and as long as you
are only working on a few files at a time, its like greased lightning.

where it falls over is when you have lots of users or processes all
accessing files, a full disk and not enough RAM.


Sounds just like Windoze. No better, no worse.

Which is where specialist disk access daemons come in like those used to
access databases on large systems.

Andy

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

If defragging is done in the background on behalf of the user, that means,
as I stated, that I never have to either defrag or worry about defragging.

Well they might need to.
It only defrags what it feels like so it may not do a very good job.
There are defraggers available for OSX and linux so some people think that a
better job needs doing.

....snip...

Switch to a Mac, then never defrag ever again.

Amazing the ****e that Windows users put up with and think is "normal".


Glass-houses ;-) The trouble I had getting my mother-in-law's Mac onto a
wireless LAN (hidden SSID issues) and then onto a shared printer...

All was sorted by drilling down to the underlying Unix and configuring from
there but boy did Apple make things hard by "guessing" what sort of networks
a Mac would talk to and not exposing the key options in the Apple GUIs.

Paul DS.

Paul D Smith wrote:
...snip...

Switch to a Mac, then never defrag ever again.

Amazing the ****e that Windows users put up with and think is "normal".


Glass-houses ;-) The trouble I had getting my mother-in-law's Mac onto a
wireless LAN (hidden SSID issues) and then onto a shared printer...

All was sorted by drilling down to the underlying Unix and configuring
from there but boy did Apple make things hard by "guessing" what sort of
networks a Mac would talk to and not exposing the key options in the
Apple GUIs.


+1. Macs are ****e if you step off the Shining Path.


Paul DS.

"Paul D Smith" wrote in message
...
...snip...

Switch to a Mac, then never defrag ever again.

Amazing the ****e that Windows users put up with and think is "normal".


Glass-houses ;-) The trouble I had getting my mother-in-law's Mac onto a
wireless LAN (hidden SSID issues) and then onto a shared printer...

All was sorted by drilling down to the underlying Unix and configuring
from there but boy did Apple make things hard by "guessing" what sort of
networks a Mac would talk to and not exposing the key options in the Apple
GUIs.

That's marketing, you should have bought Apple products and not expected it
to work with real stuff.

On Dec 6, 12:51*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,

*Davey wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:41:10 -0000
"the_constructor" wrote:

Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is
FREE
Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

Switch to a Mac, then never defrag ever again.

Amazing the ****e that Windows users put up with and think is "normal".

I just bought a2nd hand Dell with only two memory slots running XP.
Only one cradle for an hard drive too but at least now I can get rid
of Vista from my lap top and put a real operating system in.

The Dell cost 60 quid and boots up faster than my old Linux . Mind you
it only had the OS on it when I got it.

I was so surprised and delighted that I hadn't realised with no
Antivirys, firewall, all the basic (minimum 3rd party-ware needed for
use = 6 to 12 programmes not counting an office suite) that I forgot
to try and time it.

Mind you once booted up int turned back into a frog. Help9ing it cross
the street to find my dongle and get the thing online ...

If I was in charge of the world I wouuldn't hurt Microsoft management
half as cruelly as I would all the dick heads whose add on are
required.

Without them no lamer would ever use the Windows ?abuse formula? What
is a polite word for ****e?

Ah forget it. ****e is too polite as it is...
The only problem is that freeware can't compete with monopolies who
actually make the hardware. They are in the same league as
politiicans, investment bankers and secret services.

OK rant over. I must get my Windows box up.

(Would you believe I need an ISO burner tool for one?
I can't. OK I knew I would have to find a DVD tool...

Ah feck!!!!!!!) FECKING ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's the trouble with Windows key boards, they don't have a suitable
exclamation mark for them.
OK second rant over...

Oh... Ohohhoooohhhh. FFff...kkk..kkha. Oh.. that was close.
Ngh! oh..
FFFF

cd burner xp?
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 12:51 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,

Davey wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:41:10 -0000
"the_constructor" wrote:

Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is
FREE
Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

Switch to a Mac, then never defrag ever again.

Amazing the ****e that Windows users put up with and think is "normal".

I just bought a2nd hand Dell with only two memory slots running XP.
Only one cradle for an hard drive too but at least now I can get rid
of Vista from my lap top and put a real operating system in.

The Dell cost 60 quid and boots up faster than my old Linux . Mind you
it only had the OS on it when I got it.

I was so surprised and delighted that I hadn't realised with no
Antivirys, firewall, all the basic (minimum 3rd party-ware needed for
use = 6 to 12 programmes not counting an office suite) that I forgot
to try and time it.

Mind you once booted up int turned back into a frog. Help9ing it cross
the street to find my dongle and get the thing online ...

If I was in charge of the world I wouuldn't hurt Microsoft management
half as cruelly as I would all the dick heads whose add on are
required.

Without them no lamer would ever use the Windows ?abuse formula? What
is a polite word for ****e?

Ah forget it. ****e is too polite as it is...
The only problem is that freeware can't compete with monopolies who
actually make the hardware. They are in the same league as
politiicans, investment bankers and secret services.

OK rant over. I must get my Windows box up.

(Would you believe I need an ISO burner tool for one?
I can't. OK I knew I would have to find a DVD tool...

Ah feck!!!!!!!) FECKING ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's the trouble with Windows key boards, they don't have a suitable
exclamation mark for them.
OK second rant over...

Oh... Ohohhoooohhhh. FFff...kkk..kkha. Oh.. that was close.
Ngh! oh..
FFFF

On Dec 9, 2:18*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Dec 6, 12:51*pm, Tim Streater wrote:



In article ,

*Davey wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:41:10 -0000
"the_constructor" wrote:

Just deleted 21,00 email from my machine and think it is time for a
defrag.

Running XP but defrag in XP is a pile of poo.

Anyone recommend a decent defrag program please. Preferably that is
FREE
Switch to Linux, then never defrag ever again.

Switch to a Mac, then never defrag ever again.

Amazing the ****e that Windows users put up with and think is "normal".

I just bought a2nd hand Dell with only two memory slots running XP.
Only one cradle for an hard drive too but at least now I can get rid
of Vista from my lap top and put a real operating system in.

The Dell cost 60 quid and boots up faster than my old Linux . Mind you
it only had the OS on it when I got it.

I was so surprised and delighted that I hadn't realised with no
Antivirys, firewall, all the basic (minimum 3rd party-ware needed for
use = 6 to 12 programmes not counting an office suite) that I forgot
to try and time it.

Mind you once booted up int turned back into a frog. Help9ing it cross
the street to find my dongle and get the thing online ...

If I was in charge of the world I wouuldn't hurt Microsoft management
half as cruelly as I would all the dick heads whose add on are
required.

Without them no lamer would ever use the Windows ?abuse formula? What
is a polite word for ****e?

Ah forget it. ****e is too polite as it is...
The only problem is that freeware can't compete with monopolies who
actually make the hardware. They are in the same league as
politiicans, investment bankers and secret services.

OK rant over. I must get my Windows box up.

(Would you believe I need an ISO burner tool for one?
I can't. OK I knew I would have to find a DVD tool...

Ah feck!!!!!!!) FECKING ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's the trouble with Windows key boards, they don't have a suitable
exclamation mark for them.
OK second rant over...

Oh... Ohohhoooohhhh. FFff...kkk..kkha. Oh.. that was close.
Ngh! oh..
FFFF

ah, the sounds of a happy windows user


NT