Permabanned
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1,447
- Location
- Haywards Heath
Any body know why my Disk Defragmentation does not work , i have clicked on C drive at 5pm and still on 0% 
Windows 7 - Disk Defragmentation
- Thread starter TheHitMan-1973
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 293
- Location
- Doncaster
did you check for errors first?
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,260
- Location
- Swindon
Does it say 0% fragmented?
That basically means it doesn't need defragging and this is good.
That basically means it doesn't need defragging and this is good.
What use is information when it's already telling him it doesn't need defragmented? Defraggler was ace on XP but it's got little use on Windows 7. Home users are obsessed with fragmentation when most will never encounter any issues arising from it. It's one of the biggest wastes of time for home PC users, but it's a buzz word which makes people feel techy.
Plus Windows 7 should have defrag automatically set on a schedule [and takes 30 seconds to set up/change]. Why on earth would you need info if it does it all by itself every week?
As for OP, I still don't know if he is looking at the Last Run or Progress column. If the former it's finished already and doesn't need doing. If the latter it may simply be taking a while if the fragmentation is very bad and/or the drive is almost full.
As for OP, I still don't know if he is looking at the Last Run or Progress column. If the former it's finished already and doesn't need doing. If the latter it may simply be taking a while if the fragmentation is very bad and/or the drive is almost full.
Any body know why my Disk Defragmentation does not work , i have clicked on C drive at 5pm and still on 0%
Possible reasons
1. Filesystem corruption? Run chkdsk /r.
2. Bad physical cluster? Run the manufacturer's disk diagnostics?
3. Defragger's choking on a large fragmented file? Check the disk defrag analysis for fragmented file sizes.
If you have 0% fragmentation, then obviously, there's no problem. Do note that the windows defragger does not report larger fragments by default, which IMO is quite silly. Also it's speed sucks...it's way too slow.
Any fragment over 64MB isn't worth defragging, so Windows doesn't bother. There is no performance gain to be had. This is why a lot of people mistakenly believe stuff like defraggler is doing a better job, when realistically it is just doing more work for no extra gain.
Speed is irrelavent. You click Go then ignore it. You don't have to sit and watch it. Plus if you are sensible and put it on the schedule you never have to worry about it.
True, consolidating very large fragments might not produce significant performance gain for a file.
However, if over time, several ~64MB unconsolidated fragments end up causing fragmentation of free space 'around' them then new files will get needlessly fragmented on write, no? These fragmented free space extents may be large (>64 MB) or small..difficult to predict.
Reg the speed, I meant the defragger grinding away for hours...can't be too good for the disk (esp heat building up inside laptops) compared to finishing the pass quickly, IMHO. When I first ran defrag on my old Vista laptop it took a few hours to process a relatively small 160 GB HDD.... w7 is quite similar if I am not mistaken. Anyway, these things may not be a concern for everybody...just a personal nitpick for me.
However, if over time, several ~64MB unconsolidated fragments end up causing fragmentation of free space 'around' them then new files will get needlessly fragmented on write, no? These fragmented free space extents may be large (>64 MB) or small..difficult to predict.
Reg the speed, I meant the defragger grinding away for hours...can't be too good for the disk (esp heat building up inside laptops) compared to finishing the pass quickly, IMHO. When I first ran defrag on my old Vista laptop it took a few hours to process a relatively small 160 GB HDD.... w7 is quite similar if I am not mistaken. Anyway, these things may not be a concern for everybody...just a personal nitpick for me.
Last edited:
The limited reporting of Windows Defragger was annoying so I use Auslogics Disk Defrag which is fast and free and has the option to to an optimised placement run during your usual defrag.
The very first defrag using it took some hours, thereafter it doesn't take long at all depending on fragmentation, but 23% fragmentation takes about 15mins for an optimise and defrag run. This is on a 500GB WD Black Edition SATA.
Are you saying that HDD fragmentation (let's say 30% fragmented on a drive where 50% of the space is in use, as an example) = A poorer performing Windows OS, is a myth?
The very first defrag using it took some hours, thereafter it doesn't take long at all depending on fragmentation, but 23% fragmentation takes about 15mins for an optimise and defrag run. This is on a 500GB WD Black Edition SATA.
Are you saying that HDD fragmentation (let's say 30% fragmented on a drive where 50% of the space is in use, as an example) = A poorer performing Windows OS, is a myth?
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,757
I think the point he was (correctly) getting at is that if you leave Windows to its own devices, it'll never get to that stage, unless you have some very unusual usage patterns.
Besides, it depends on context, and what that "30%" actually means in practice - if the volume consisted mostly of large media files, they could all be in dozens or hundreds of fragments and it wouldn't seriously impact performance.
Exactly. Windows 7 (and Vista to a lesser degree but still...) is very good at maintaining its file systems. Unless you have loads of very small boot/program files in loads of small fragments it will not impact performance to a noticeable degree. This does not happen these days. Having media files split into 2/3/4 parts doesn't make any odds really.
Fragmentation was a problem with 95/98 because a couple of factors. Back in day Windows used FAT32, which is a bad start, and very slow hard drives. Remember 1.6GB to 6GB Quantum Fireball drives of good old 1996/97? Sporting a whole 128kb cache (drives of the time usually topped out at 64kb) it ran at a monstrous 5400RPM over uATA at just a shade under 30mb per second. The Quantums were the Raptors of their day!
XP brought NTFS (though many people stayed with FAT32
) and drives increased in speed... But XP lacked any of the background maintenance of Vista/7. Hard drives just didn't scale in speed as quickly as other hardware. Only in the last few years have we seen decent improvements.Slowing of systems is usually down to daft/malicious software and a lot of "improvements" in speed brought about by defragging are a placebo
Mad as it is I know a few people how are still obsessed with fragmentation
Old habits die hard.
Last edited:
If you can put up with the argumentative nature of one of the posters in this thread, I'd recommend reading: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18123890&highlight=ntfs
It should be a good read for anyone interested in NTFS and fragmentation.
It should be a good read for anyone interested in NTFS and fragmentation.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 319
- Location
- Scotland
I thought there were 2 equally argumentative posters in the thread.
Its a great thread being knowledge-giving while also amusing.
I thought the politicians on Question Time 'debating' were a hoot but not as much as these 2 lol