This is how to defrag a PC and the reason why

John_Gray

I'm sure I've pointed to this Microsoft blog about Disk Defragmentation – Background and Engineering the Windows 7 Improvements before, but it's well worth a read...

motorguy

anewhope wrote: »

Larger Hard Drives/faster CPUs with higher amounts of cache and better designed software have pretty much negated any performance benefits that defragmenting a disk may have given years ago.

Yeah if your hard disk is bigger than 20GB, chances are your PC is young enough not to have to work about defragmenting.

Zanzibar

Larger Hard Drives/faster CPUs with higher amounts of cache and better designed software have pretty much negated any performance benefits that defragmenting a disk may have given years ago.

No they havent. Windows Vista/7 simply schedule a defrag every week. So you are still defragmenting - its just not obvious to the uninitiated.

They also do not defrag 'on the fly' as a couple of people have posted. They make better use of available space but they don't defrag like that - see the link posted above.

Yeah if your hard disk is bigger than 20GB, chances are your PC is young enough not to have to work about defragmenting.

This is wrong. 20Gb hard disks were standard 5+ years ago on laptops and further back on desktops. So are you saying a 5 year old PC will be fine? The average XP PC I see will need defragmenting every few months. If you dont use your PC much then fine - but add/delete data, load OS updates, update your AV, update your browser, load new apps, delete old apps (ie. standard PC use) means the disk fragments. The defag utility actually tells you the amount of fragmentation - load a trial of DiskKeeper to see the actual time savings before after fragmentation to give you an idea.

Assertions that - 'oh, you dont need to defragment' are wrong - you need it more then ever. The only difference is that you don't need to do it manually.

An example of how much you need to defragment - take a fresh XP re-install for example - if you reload from the original restore disks, then apply Service Pack 3, then apply the 99Mb of Windows updates currently available, then load AV, then update it, then load Office and update it , and the same for a few other apps everyone uses (Adobe reader, Picassa, iTunes etc etc etc) - all from fresh - the disk map looks like a mess BEFORE you even use the system- you actually need to defrag as part of the reinstall process.

Have a guess what a couple of years old PC looks like after all of the same.

The reason its fragmented is that you are loading and deleting so many files with the updates that its not a nice clean restore as it once was. Same with all Windows versions - every update has the likeyhood of causing fragmentation as key operating system and application files are the main target of these updates.

closed

The point is, it doesn't matter much if the map looks a mess, the real world difference in performance between a mess, and defragged is hardly if at all noticeable.

buglawton

I get noticeably better performance after a defrag so do one every 3 or 6 months.

[Deleted User]

Zanzibar wrote: »

No they havent. Windows Vista/7 simply schedule a defrag every week. So you are still defragmenting - its just not obvious to the uninitiated.

Exactly, better designed software. Thinking that by defragmenting your disk manually with a program and expecting to notice a significant performance increase is unrealistic.

John_the_Boy

Got to be honest I defrag every week just to be sure. However I have actually noticed an improvement with defraggers that optimise your disk rather than just defragmenting them. Anyone else any thoughts on disk optimisers?

Marty_J

anewhope wrote: »

Larger Hard Drives/faster CPUs with higher amounts of cache and better designed software have pretty much negated any performance benefits that defragmenting a disk may have given years ago.

Apple say pretty much the same thing in their support document about defragmentation.

Zanzibar

Exactly, better designed software. Thinking that by defragmenting your disk manually with a program and expecting to notice a significant performance increase is unrealistic.

Its not unrealistic at all for XP or earlier when a system has been left for a while. What is 'significant' improvement would be different for different users. Some wouldn't care but at some point there would be a noticable gain in performance for the small input of clicking 'defrag'. Prove it to yourself - disable your Vista or 7 scheduled defrag for 6 months. Then report back on the performance of your system. Then defrag and compare again and you will have an idea of the difference.

The point is, it doesn't matter much if the map looks a mess, the real world difference in performance between a mess, and defragged is hardly if at all noticeable.

If that were true then a weekly defrag wouldn't be scheduled by default in Vista and 7 to stop it happening.

'Real world difference' will vary with system specification, amount of fragmentation, programs loaded, useage pattern etc etc. XP is still installed as the standard in corporate environments and even on current 'fast' hardware and I see systems slowed down by a well fragmented drive. Increases in hardware speeds are negated after a time by the increasing update frenzy that means every program requires updates (necessarily) - so where the load set was once reasonably static with just data files fragmenting now core files also fragment.

Plus people simply having more data now - gigabytes of iTunes, photos and email are not uncommon for home users where it was 5 years ago.

Apple say pretty much the same thing in their support document about defragmentation.

But that is comparing different file systems - HFS+ to NTFS. Where NTFS still requires regular defragmenting HFS+ doesn't.

However I have actually noticed an improvement with defraggers that optimise your disk rather than just defragmenting them. Anyone else any thoughts on disk optimisers?

Yes, this is key and Im amazed it hasnt bene included in Windows/NTFS yet - where files contingent on each other are relocated together - for faster loading. What one are you using there?

borders_dude

BillScarab wrote: »

Personally I've never understood the obsession with defragging. It makes very little noticable difference to performance.

I concur with this!