Carlos E. R. wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The Sunday 2008-02-17 at 22:37 -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
MS's defragger is some very poorly designed code. It works by a very "brute force" methodology, and has no intelligence to it.
Norton's defragger is much better...it not only optimizes disk head movements of the defragging process, it ALSO allows you to specify certain file types to be towards the beginning of the partition (optimizing access to those files) and pushing towards the back of the blob of blocks that are in use those files which tend to, or are most likely to be modified again.
I know. I also used pctools myself time ago. But I felt that it could work faster by saving larger chunks to memory than it did.
I would agree on that point. Both seem to be hard-coded to use minimal amounts of RAM during any block transfer (even though nobody in their right mind is going to try to do work during a defrag).
The question for XP admins is if that task is really worthwhile; I mean, if having a computer off-line for several hours with heavy disk activity and wear, as compared to been perhaps a small percent slower in normal use.
User's don't like waiting around for MS-es pathetically slow OS to fidget around even more due to ultra-pathetically-slow disk access.
Yes, but, is the system _really_ faster after unfragmenting? The test would be to do the procedure for one third of the users, anoother third run a placebo, and nothing for the last hird; then measure the users reaction afterward.
My experience admining XP last year indicates that users do have some level of awareness of fragmentation-related loss of responsiveness. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org