I was thinking NTFS moves files around when they are read & that reason alone it needs updated. I mean how old is it like 15? http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/other-c.html
Does windows need a new FS?
- Thread starter Edward78
- Start date
The simple fact you still need to defrag NTFS is a cry for needing an update.
But wait, it's much more important they interrupt and hinder the user before doing anything logical.
Are you sure?
Really, are you sure?
I'm going to do it anyway.
You can't leave me unattended, I have to tell you about these new features that you aren't ever going to use!
Are you sure?
But wait, it's much more important they interrupt and hinder the user before doing anything logical.
Are you sure?
Really, are you sure?
I'm going to do it anyway.
You can't leave me unattended, I have to tell you about these new features that you aren't ever going to use!
Are you sure?
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 856
update
Can't remember the last time I defragged. It's not a bad FS, it pretty much does what it says on the tin. Obviously the priority in making a new FS is to have compatibility across FAT16, FAT32 and NTFS which I guess isn't the easiest thing to do. Also it would have to give significant benefits.
M.
M.
Defragging, is outdated. Do you have to in OS X, Linux, BSDs or Salris/OpenSalaris. I linked to the features article so you guys could read it. Like the Unix file systems sound good.
* Excellent expandability, and support for large storage devices.
* Directory-level and file-level security and access controls, including the ability to control which users or groups of users can read, write or execute a file.
* Very good performance and efficient operation.
* The ability to create "flexible" file systems containing many different devices, to combine devices and present them as a single file system, or to remotely mount other storage devices for local use.
* Facilities for effectively dealing with many users and programs in a multitasking environment, while requiring a minimum of administration.
* Ways to create special constructs such as logically linked files.
* Reliability and robustness features such as journaling and support for RAID.
Last edited:
Only because the file system is pants at space allocation. defragging is not a tool, it is a bodge work around for a failed system.
I don't disagree with you there. It's hard to create a filesystem that can allocate the space effectively if it doesn't know what's coming though, certainly not without introducing way more disk reads and writes.
Am I right in thinking, with the advent of SSDs, there's less benefit to defragging as seek times are drastically reduced?
Am I right in thinking, with the advent of SSDs, there's less benefit to defragging as seek times are drastically reduced?
Wow, on a fresh install see my point exactly. Have you seen that with Linux/OpenSalaris/Unix/BSD.,
Define 'plenty of benefit' - have you measured load times etc. with a stopwatch?
Well if I did that i'd be slightly worried about how seriously I was taking it!
Perhaps it's not as much nowadays, with faster disks and all. Still, I want to extract the best from my system, there's no reason not to do it.
Back when I had a win98 machine with a 13GB HDD, defragging (although it took ******* ages) gave a very noticeable performance boost, especially when loading into windows. I'd say a good 20 secs off the time until it stops disk thrashing on startup since the disk was usually so full.
FAT/FAT32 do slow down noticeably when very fragmented. NTFS does not slow down noticeably at all unless it is incredibly fragmented (and still won't on an SSD disk because of the ultra fast seek time).
All you achieve by regular defragging is wearing out your hard drive quicker, it puts a big strain on it which regular normal use does not.
All these 3rd party defrag programs are basically a rip-off, they give zero to negligible performance benefit.