Re: MAJOR DEFAG PROBLEMS



bumbleb
07-10-2005, 02:28 AM
Yes, the third party automatic defrag tools are more efficient and
faster than the built-in and have really made all the difference in
system maintenance.


--
bumbleb

David Morgan \(MAMS\)
07-10-2005, 02:28 AM
"bumbleb" <bumbleb.1quuig@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message news:bumbleb.1quuig@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>
> Yes, the third party automatic defrag tools are more efficient and
> faster than the built-in and have really made all the difference in
> system maintenance.


Are you serious? References to some documentation to that effect?

TIA

Leythos
07-10-2005, 02:29 AM
In article <XS6te.17643$9a1.9042@trnddc01>, mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com
says...
>
> "bumbleb" <bumbleb.1quuig@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message news:bumbleb.1quuig@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
> >
> > Yes, the third party automatic defrag tools are more efficient and
> > faster than the built-in and have really made all the difference in
> > system maintenance.
>
>
> Are you serious? References to some documentation to that effect?

I can honestly say that I've seen this on Systems since Windows 95 was
out, and I've really seen massive improvements in performance on heavily
used file servers and even servers with fragmented databases where we
off-line defragged them.

Defragging with free-space consolidation is the way to do it.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

David Morgan \(MAMS\)
07-10-2005, 02:29 AM
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message news:MPG.1d1ff6c448d5148298992e@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <XS6te.17643$9a1.9042@trnddc01>, mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com
> says...
> >
> > "bumbleb" <bumbleb.1quuig@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message news:bumbleb.1quuig@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
> > >
> > > Yes, the third party automatic defrag tools are more efficient and
> > > faster than the built-in and have really made all the difference in
> > > system maintenance.
> >
> >
> > Are you serious? References to some documentation to that effect?
>
> I can honestly say that I've seen this on Systems since Windows 95 was
> out, and I've really seen massive improvements in performance on heavily
> used file servers and even servers with fragmented databases where we
> off-line defragged them.
>
> Defragging with free-space consolidation is the way to do it.


I was just curious. I've often seen the Norton stuff (not on XP) report
that a system was fully defragmented... but when shut down far enough
to regain the use of the Windows defrag tool, the drives turned out to be
virtually splattered. Haven't trusted outside stuff since then, so maybe I
should get back up to date on what's out there.

DM

Edward W. Thompson
07-10-2005, 02:29 AM
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d1ff6c448d5148298992e@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <XS6te.17643$9a1.9042@trnddc01>, mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com
> says...
>>
>> "bumbleb" <bumbleb.1quuig@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:bumbleb.1quuig@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>> >
>> > Yes, the third party automatic defrag tools are more efficient and
>> > faster than the built-in and have really made all the difference in
>> > system maintenance.
>>
>>
>> Are you serious? References to some documentation to that effect?
>
> I can honestly say that I've seen this on Systems since Windows 95 was
> out, and I've really seen massive improvements in performance on heavily
> used file servers and even servers with fragmented databases where we
> off-line defragged them.
>
> Defragging with free-space consolidation is the way to do it.
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

As far as I know there is no reliable evidence to show that third party
defrag software is more efficient, other than quicker, than the WINXP
native defrag software.
There is plenty of opinions that testify to the superiority of one Company's
software over another. The worth of these opinions is at best questionable.

wayne
07-10-2005, 02:29 AM
the windows defrag software is a "lite" version of Diskeeper software.
I have read many different reviews and the answer for most users is
that you will not notice any "real world" difference between a fragment
and a defragmented drive. As for the best defrag scheme it is to put
the file in order but to leave the open spaces rather than try to move
all the data together. The reason to leave the spaces is twofold. As
soon a a file gets larger if you have moved all the files together you
have created new fragmentation, if you leave the open spaces it MAY
allow for file growth without adding to the fragmentation.


File fragmentation of new hard drives is kind of like processor speed
for most people in that it is not what is slowing down the system. Go
to a store and open up a program on a P4 2.8 and a 3.0 system of the
same brand you will not notice any difference. Pick a system that has
256MB of Ram and one that has 512MB you MIGHT notice a small difference.

Turn the computers off and see how long it takes Windows to start you
will see no difference between processors but will see a difference
with memory.

Now find a system that has SATA drives vs the older type and you
probably will see a small difference.



Wayne

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d1ff6c448d5148298992e@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <XS6te.17643$9a1.9042@trnddc01>, mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com
> > says...
> > >
> >> "bumbleb" <bumbleb.1quuig@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in
> message >> news:bumbleb.1quuig@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
> >> >
> >> > Yes, the third party automatic defrag tools are more efficient
> and >> > faster than the built-in and have really made all the
> difference in >> > system maintenance.
> > >
> > >
> >> Are you serious? References to some documentation to that
> effect?
> >
> > I can honestly say that I've seen this on Systems since Windows 95
> > was out, and I've really seen massive improvements in performance
> > on heavily used file servers and even servers with fragmented
> > databases where we off-line defragged them.
> >
> > Defragging with free-space consolidation is the way to do it.
> >
> > --
> > --
> > spam999free@rrohio.com
> > remove 999 in order to email me
>
> As far as I know there is no reliable evidence to show that third
> party defrag software is more efficient, other than quicker, than
> the WINXP native defrag software.
> There is plenty of opinions that testify to the superiority of one
> Company's software over another. The worth of these opinions is at
> best questionable.

Leythos
07-10-2005, 02:29 AM
In article <37ste.33316$gL4.33246@trnddc07>, mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com
says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message news:MPG.1d1ff6c448d5148298992e@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <XS6te.17643$9a1.9042@trnddc01>, mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com
> > says...
> > >
> > > "bumbleb" <bumbleb.1quuig@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message news:bumbleb.1quuig@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the third party automatic defrag tools are more efficient and
> > > > faster than the built-in and have really made all the difference in
> > > > system maintenance.
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you serious? References to some documentation to that effect?
> >
> > I can honestly say that I've seen this on Systems since Windows 95 was
> > out, and I've really seen massive improvements in performance on heavily
> > used file servers and even servers with fragmented databases where we
> > off-line defragged them.
> >
> > Defragging with free-space consolidation is the way to do it.
>
>
> I was just curious. I've often seen the Norton stuff (not on XP) report
> that a system was fully defragmented... but when shut down far enough
> to regain the use of the Windows defrag tool, the drives turned out to be
> virtually splattered. Haven't trusted outside stuff since then, so maybe I
> should get back up to date on what's out there.

I don't use Norton products, only Symantec Corporate Edition AV
products.

I use Diskeeper 9 for my servers and workstations.

When I do a n off-line defrag, one where it reboots, defrags, and then
reboots back to Win, it's always packed.

When I defrag a server, like a SQL server, I will stop the SQL services
with a batch file, defrag the drives, cons. free space, then restart the
SQL services.

If you get enough exposure with fragmented files and free space you will
see the benefit no matter what the nay-sayers tell you.


--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-10-2005, 02:29 AM
In article <uIt6F9VdFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, thomeduk1
@btopenworld.com says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d1ff6c448d5148298992e@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <XS6te.17643$9a1.9042@trnddc01>, mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> "bumbleb" <bumbleb.1quuig@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:bumbleb.1quuig@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
> >> >
> >> > Yes, the third party automatic defrag tools are more efficient and
> >> > faster than the built-in and have really made all the difference in
> >> > system maintenance.
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you serious? References to some documentation to that effect?
> >
> > I can honestly say that I've seen this on Systems since Windows 95 was
> > out, and I've really seen massive improvements in performance on heavily
> > used file servers and even servers with fragmented databases where we
> > off-line defragged them.
> >
> > Defragging with free-space consolidation is the way to do it.
> >
>
> As far as I know there is no reliable evidence to show that third party
> defrag software is more efficient, other than quicker, than the WINXP
> native defrag software.
> There is plenty of opinions that testify to the superiority of one Company's
> software over another. The worth of these opinions is at best questionable.

With hundreds of servers and more than 1K in workstations, I stand by my
experience with non-Win defragging being more efficient and producing a
better result than the built-in Win defragger.

I'm not asking you to believe that I have the solution, I'm just stating
that all the people saying it doesn't do any better, or that it provides
no benefit, that those people don't live in the real world or have any
real-world experience to show for their own opinions.

I've seen web servers returned to like new performance, same for
databases, same for workstations and video editing boxes..... While Win
native defragged will defragment to a reasonable level, there just
doesn't seem to be anything as good as Diskeeper, and I've tried most of
the commercial apps out there during the last 5 years.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-10-2005, 02:29 AM
In article <b66dnThwuslNISvfRVn-rw@comcast.com>, nope@nowhere.com
says...
> the windows defrag software is a "lite" version of Diskeeper software.
> I have read many different reviews and the answer for most users is
> that you will not notice any "real world" difference between a fragment
> and a defragmented drive. As for the best defrag scheme it is to put
> the file in order but to leave the open spaces rather than try to move
> all the data together. The reason to leave the spaces is twofold. As
> soon a a file gets larger if you have moved all the files together you
> have created new fragmentation, if you leave the open spaces it MAY
> allow for file growth without adding to the fragmentation.

And a good defragger will move the commonly used files to the end of the
packed space. Different tools have different methods.

> File fragmentation of new hard drives is kind of like processor speed
> for most people in that it is not what is slowing down the system. Go
> to a store and open up a program on a P4 2.8 and a 3.0 system of the
> same brand you will not notice any difference. Pick a system that has
> 256MB of Ram and one that has 512MB you MIGHT notice a small difference.

Not the same at all - it's like having the same computers 256/512 and
then adding lots of apps to both, sooner or later the 256MB system will
start to crawl while the 512MB system will slow marginally.

> Turn the computers off and see how long it takes Windows to start you
> will see no difference between processors but will see a difference
> with memory.

Now, in the real world you would use both computers for 2 years and then
measure the boot time from the fist day to the 2 year mark - you would
see a big difference. After a defrag you might see half that difference.

> Now find a system that has SATA drives vs the older type and you
> probably will see a small difference.

And again, it's based on more than just SATA vs IDE, the cheap
controllers don't do much, but if you have a high-end SATA controller
that's not throttled by the motherboard/CPU, then you WILL see the
difference, I know that we do.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me


Re: MAJOR DEFAG PROBLEMS