Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3574 mails)

["Carlos E. R." <robin.listas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----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.


> >  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.

- -- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHuWu5tTMYHG2NR9URAv6EAJ9vvl7egeMKZ3pEEWWVvEi1Ahr/OwCeLu4V
9fF7Ih29usISl4vttpWhd80=
=MWQX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx