defrag no time limit

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Performance' started by Robert Hale, Mar 23, 2007.

  1. Robert Hale

    Robert Hale Guest

    Why does defrag not show you a bar telling how far along degrag is in
    completing its work? It just leaves the front end there with a sign
    saying"this may take from a few minutes to a few hours. Dud. Suppose I want
    to wait five minutes but not five hours??


    Rober Hale
     
    Robert Hale, Mar 23, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2.  
    Rick Kirchoff, Mar 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I agree that it should at least show the percentage done and it also should
    let you see how badly it is fragmented. XP showed it..all other versions
    showed it...why can't vista show it? Another bad thing is that when you click
    on defrag, it automatically analyzes your system. This slows down the
    process again too. To me, it is another case of microsoft wanting to control
    everything.
     
    Rick Kirchoff, Mar 23, 2007
    #3
  4. In Vista, the defrag is designed to work in the background, just schedule
    the time you want it to run and forget it. It has been changed to run when
    the system is idle and to pause when the system is in use.

    Take a look at the following pages for complete information.

    http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/default.aspx

    http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/disk-defragmenter-faq.aspx

    http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/archive/tags/Disk+Defragmenter/default.aspx

    http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/archive/2006/10/19/a-quick-note-about-defrag-exe-parameters.aspx
     
    Ronnie Vernon MVP, Mar 23, 2007
    #4
  5. Robert Hale

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> Robert
    Because it isn't possible to accurately predict how far along a
    defragmentation is.

    More importantly, it reduces the user inclination to sit there and wait
    for it to finish, or avoid using your PC while defragmenting.

    Either defrag or don't (it runs automatically on a schedule anyway),
    keep using your PC or don't, whatever makes you happier, but it
    generally won't make a difference on e way or the other as far as Vista
    is concerned.
     
    DevilsPGD, Mar 23, 2007
    #5
  6. You make this sound really sinister. Microsoft certainly doesn't want to
    control the defragmenting of your hard drive. It's just been moved to a
    background process because of requests.

    Watching the defrag program work has always seemed to me like watching the
    grass grow or paint dry.

    If you must see this, you can see most of the information at a command
    prompt.

    Open a command prompt and type defrag /? for the syntax of the possible
    commands.
     
    Ronnie Vernon MVP, Mar 24, 2007
    #6
  7. defrag does not run automatically on a schedule unless you tell it to. I am
    in the computer repair business and I find it necessary to see the
    fragmentation of the hard drive of all my clients and future clients. If I
    can see how badly a computer is fragmented, it will then tell me in my mind
    that the client does not know anything about this program and I will then
    teach them about it. Some computers run slow after defragging and by being
    able to see the fragmentation level, I can also run other checks to see what
    it slowing it down. To me, seeing file fragments is a must requirement.
    Again, Microsoft is trying to take control.

    Based on past experiences with computers, I've found that defragging is a
    requirment to keep the system healthy. Not defragging can lead to
    unrecoverable hive errors thus making drive replacement necessary. So far,
    Vista is a joke. XP was the better of the 2 operating systems. Vista
    reminds me so much of Win-Me...another dud!
     
    Rick Kirchoff, Mar 24, 2007
    #7
  8. Robert Hale

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> Rick
    On Vista, it does.
    From an elevated command line, "defrag c: -a"
    Better yet, don't -- Let Windows take care of it. Let the computer work
    for you, don't work for the computer.
    If defragmenting slows things down past a reboot (to let any odd file
    caching weirdness clear out), you're using the wrong defragmentation
    tool.
    Which is exactly why it runs by default automatically.
     
    DevilsPGD, Mar 24, 2007
    #8
  9. There is no such thing as "unrecoverable hive errors thus making drive
    replacement necessary". A reinstall is all that's needed. You should NOT be
    taking money for repair and advice. Shame on you!

    mi
     
    miss-information, Mar 25, 2007
    #9
  10. Robert Hale

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> "miss-information"
    Not only that, but fragmentation wouldn't impact it anyway.
     
    DevilsPGD, Mar 26, 2007
    #10
  11. Robert Hale

    marty Guest

    Buy Perfect Disk from Raxco. All your prayers will be answered.

    Marty Felker
     
    marty, Mar 27, 2007
    #11
  12. Robert Hale

    Billy Nicol Guest

    Auslogic has a free defrag. is it any good?

    Billy
     
    Billy Nicol, Mar 27, 2007
    #12
  13. Shame on me?!? I run a business...not a volunteer service. I have clients
    that know nothing about computers and they demand that their systems run as
    expected. It is apparent that you've never encountered any hive errors that
    were unrecoverable. I have and not just once. I've tried using the recovery
    option of xp but it does not always work. Recovery-v-drive replacement is
    50-50. I've also tried recovering from fatal errors using Gibson Research's
    Spinrite but it does not always recover and it usually requires a minimum of
    4-5 days to recover, depending on the size of the hard drive, which is
    something that alot of my clients do not have. Many are accountants,
    lawyers, and doctors. I also use the hard drive manufacturers diagnostics as
    well as support from their technicians. I don't like to replace hard drives
    but sometimes, you have to do it and in the long run, time is money and time
    is also the difference of keeping a client or losing them.
     
    Rick Kirchoff, Mar 27, 2007
    #13
  14. I see now that you're the village know-it-all. Sorry if I have popped your
    bubble but my findings are supported by military technicians. They probably
    don't know as much as you know but they're alot more intuitive about it.

    Since you believe that fragmentation has no impact, then why have the defrag
    program at all? Why not listen to yourself for a change? I guess Microsoft
    is wrong as well and so are many other techs too. Oh...I forgot, you're
    always right. Excuuuuuse me!
     
    Rick Kirchoff, Mar 28, 2007
    #14
  15. To replace a drive because the Registry is corrupt is moronic. Too bad your
    customers have to pay for your (a) deceit or (b) ignorance, or both. It's a
    simple procedure to boot with a recovery CD. Bart PE, Ultimate Boot CD or a
    Linux live CD e.g. Ubuntu, and pull important data files off. Then reinstall
    the OS. Time 2 hours. Software errors don't break hardware, MORON.

    mi
     
    miss-information, Mar 28, 2007
    #15
  16. Robert Hale

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> Rick
    Fragmentation causes a performance impact, not a reliability impact
    (Although recovering a corrupt drive is substantially harder if it's
    fragmented)
     
    DevilsPGD, Mar 28, 2007
    #16
  17. There are three aspects to fragmentation, defragging, and reliability.

    1) Recoverability

    As DevilsPGD says, the less fragmented the file system, the better the
    data recovery will be if you are forced to assume the linkage of
    cluster chains/runs from a first-cluster starting point.

    On a FATxx volume, losing both copies of the FAT will force you to
    work from an assumption of unfragmented runs. You can deduce
    break-points, but it's tedious guesswork at best. Best results are
    where the cluster size is larger than the file size ;-)

    On an NTFS volume, there's no table of cluster addresses; instead, a
    series of start and length entries define the cluster runs
    (unfragmented chain segments) that comprise the file's data stream.

    I don't know NTFS well enough to speculate on the likelyhood of
    knowing the start cluster for a file from the directory entry, yet
    losing the run segment info, but another unwanted side-effect of
    fragmentation suggests itself; an increasing bulk of space needed to
    hold the additional start, length entries.

    2) Corruption risk of fragmentation

    The longer it takes to update the file system, the greater the risk of
    corruption from events that might interrupt the process. Think of
    this as "size on the dartboard of time", with crashes etc. as the
    darts that get thrown at the board.

    The worst-case scenario is a slowly-growing directory containing lots
    of items that is frequently updated )and thus perhaps "always in use"
    so it is never defragged). This would be like the whole of the "20"
    on the dart board, and it's quite easy to hit a "20".

    Now if that long fragmmented chain was defragged so that it could be
    operated on more quickly, it would be like the "double-20" on the
    dartboard; a far smaller target for the arrows (OK, darts) of chance.

    3) Corruption risk of DEfragmentation

    The defrag process is inherently risky, as it involves reading
    potentially "everything" off HD into RAM and then writing it back
    somewhere else. That's a lot of disk-heating activity, and if RAM
    throws 1 in 100 000 errors, that's a lot of corrupted file contents
    and clusters written back to the wrong places on the disk. UGLY.

    I see (3) as a far more significant risk than (2), and thus I see
    defragging as like an hour-long workout in the gym; a great way to
    make a healthy system fitter, but potentially lethal for the infirm.

    So not only is defragging close to irrelevant in terms of reliability,
    is is actively contra-indicated in unreliable systems.

    Defrag is NOT a trouble-shooting tool !!


    Hmmm... what was the *other* idea?
     
    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user), Mar 29, 2007
    #17
  18. I use auslogic's free defragger and it works far better than the pay
    versions.

    IMO, being able to view the fragmented files shows me the maintenance of the
    computer. It may not show this to you...that is your problem. I use it as
    part of a troubleshooting package and will continue to do so irregardless of
    what the village genius's may believe.

    Since we're talking opinions, it is my opinion to stay away from Vista
    entirely. It is nothing more than pure junk. It is worse than Win-Me.
     
    Rick Kirchoff, Apr 1, 2007
    #18
  19. On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 10:59:01 -0700, Rick Kirchoff
    Better in what way? I'm not being confrontational here, it's just
    that different folks look for different things.

    Some look at whether files are degragmented, or whether the free space
    is moved to the end. Others look at the speed of the boot process,
    application loads etc. after the defrag is done. Others value a fast
    defrag process, even if it may not boost performance as much.

    So the strategy can be "good" on one criterion, but "bad" on another.

    For example, the original Win95 and DOS logic was to:
    - ensure all files were contiguous
    - move free space to the end
    - (some) move directories to the front

    Then came Win98, where the strategy changed towards identifying which
    *parts* of which files were accessed most often, and move those to the
    front, even if this broke the larger file into separate fragments with
    a fair amount of head travel between them.

    If viewed by Win95-era logic, or the desire for pure defragmentation
    (say, to aid recoverability or before a resizing operation), then the
    newer strategy is "bad". If viewed against the criterion of "how fast
    does the OS and apps startup?", the newer approach may be "good".

    If an add-on defragger applies the newer logic, then how does it
    identify what code sections are most often used? Does it harvest the
    ..PF info built by the OS, or run its own background service to track
    what is used most often, etc.?

    If it runs its own service, then how stable is this, what is the
    performance impact, and what is the quality of the code (i.e. how sure
    are we that it is not an exploitable surface)?
    Yes, that's all I wanted when I found this defragger; a volume usage
    mapper for Vista, so I could see whether the black-box "trust me, I'd
    a defragger" Vista defrag was actually doing anything sensible -
    noting that strategy variations make this hard to assess.


    Rudeness is human nature's way of curbing demand
     
    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user), Apr 2, 2007
    #19
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.