Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
Solve : Degragment Win 7? |
|
Answer» Quote from: Rus on January 24, 2010, 01:38:33 PM My problem is solved. How do I markl my post as complete? You just did Glad you sorted it. How did you solve the problem?Quote from: Allan on January 23, 2010, 11:52:26 AM That means the same thing. The two terms are interchangeable. And this isn't very accurate either.Quote from: patio on January 23, 2010, 09:31:02 AM Geek...what does this mean ? ? What's up with the default scheduled task to automatically defrag at 1:00 AM every Wednesday?I show no default scheduled tasks in a brand new install of Win7 64bit.Quote from: patio on January 25, 2010, 10:00:27 PM I show no default scheduled tasks in a brand new install of Win7 64bit. Task Scheduler (LOCAL)-> Task Scheduler Library->Microsoft->Windows->Defrag It's there all right... I disabled it just now. Defragmentation is a huge waste of computer resources for very little gain. If we didn't need defragmentation when access times were >85ms I don't see why we need it for <10ms access times. Allan is pretty much correct wth regards to "optimizing" versus simply defragmenting. However one can defragment without "optimizing" so I don't think the terms are as interchangable as they once were. My opinion: Defragmentation is a waste of time, and Optimization even more so. How much time do you save by putting certain files in the "faster accessed" portion of the disc. hardly any. average access time for most drives is less then 10ms, all your doing is moving the data to the outside of the platter (it spins by faster) so if you move a file from the middle of the disk to the outter edge: for a 3.5 inch hard disk, we are moving the data from 1.75" to all the way to the outside, or 3.5". I work better with metric though so those measurements are 8.89cm and 4.445 cm respectively: what we are doing is increasing the amount of data the DRIVE can access; but by how much? circumference is measured using the formula PI*D (diameter) so: PI*8.80cm*2 = 55.8575173808265cm PI*4.445cm*2= 27.9287586904133cm now, assuming we have a speed of 7200rpm, this means that we are increasing the speed the data goes by from covering 3351.45 cm every second to 6702.90208569918cm, which approximately doubles the amount of data passing under the read head. However, this doesn't take into account the fact that the drive motor has to move the heads to be at the edge of the disk; depending on where they are they might take longer then moving ot the middle of the disk, and can actually decrease the access time (while increasing the BURST rate, which is pretty pointless when your dealing with files that take up as much space on the disk as a PINHEAD). This type of "optimization" can only really show good results when dealing with streaming media, like high-resolution video. For more clandestine operation it's pretty pointless. And then we have people who are newer to computers that don't quite understand what defragmenting does, and think it will resolve issues they are having with the disk. Quote from: BC_Programmer on January 26, 2010, 07:42:35 AM Agreed, the terms were once interchangeable but now there is a bit of a difference between the two. My error. |
|