From: dragonsclaw@NOTmindspring.com
On 19 Feb 2013 07:04:05 GMT, Paul Emmons wrote:
>I have a 2TB external drive which I'm sure is badly fragmented. A few days
>ago, I started the defragmenter on it and let it run overnight. When I
>looked at it again some twelve hours later, defragmentation was only 7%
>complete. This confirms my belief that defragmentation can be a cure that
>is worse than the disease. It would be far better, if possible, to copy
>all files to a new drive, then delete them from the original and use it for
>something else. If I do this, I shall run the defragmenter more often so
>that the situation never gets this bad.
>
>However, I've discovered that even with this low % complete, the drive
>seems more responsive to various requests such as directory listings. This
>might be because not only the files were fragmented, but the directories
>were as well (a few folders contain thousands of files and subfolders), and
>the defragmenter consolidated these first as a top priority.
>
>Does anyone know whether this is the case? If so, it is an argument for
>using the defragmenter even if you don't have time or patience for
>completing the task.
Every bit helps. (thing read ahead buffering)
A couple of points.
there are many types(?)/kinds of fragmentation:
1)single file fragments all over the place
2)directory (sibling) file scatter. This one hurts when a related file (eg
index, dll...) is on some other part of the disk
3)split directory blocks (the directory spans multiple non-contiguous blocks)
7% :o overnight (The default M$ did not take anywhere near that on a 1T USB2
drive)
Get another defragmenter program that permits selective control
Review what is sharing the USB Channel with the drive (and adjust )
Temporarily exclude that drive from you A/M-Malware scan (it may be examining
every file touched... Multiple times as compacting may touch the file more
than once
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
