What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
151 Comments
- ryman, on 10/12/2007, -17/+574Okay, I'm sick of this. Can we please stop with the "comment abuse" comments? If you're providing a mirror, you're providing a service to people. Instead of having to fire up duggmirror and looking for the article they want a mirror of, someone is being generous enough to provide a link within the comments page for the article. This is not abusing the comments system, this is making other people's lives easier. Why should someone have to apologize for this?
- Shade00a00, on 10/12/2007, -18/+183Comment abuse for a mirror :
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:http://vistarewired.com/2007/02/15/defragment/&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&sa=G&strip=1 - pastaq, on 11/09/2007, -54/+219ext3 takes 0 mins to defrag... muahahahahahaha!
- dijital, on 10/12/2007, -19/+181Did you get that second button for your mouse yet?
- WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -18/+131@ryman
because many diggers have poles up their asses. you know the ones. DUPE!!!! COMMENT ABUSE!!! THE INTERNET HAS RULES YOU KNOW!!!
some people feel they need to apologize to them. Personally, I like to piss them off further :) - Recuso, on 11/09/2007, -23/+135@lengau
No, they don't defrag when the computer is not doing anything else. The file systems don't fragment in the first place. Hence, they don't need defragmenting. - Felshadow, on 10/12/2007, -21/+122mac's have harddrives now?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+96Wrong.
- ahcomeon, on 11/14/2007, -4/+93Isn't it "format c:"
- directedition, on 10/12/2007, -3/+78Frees up lots of space in no time at all.
- bcardarella, on 10/12/2007, -8/+76or, "the fastest way to crash wordpress" = using wordpress
- fourtythreek, on 11/09/2007, -2/+67@Recuso
That isn't exactly true. ext3 takes precautions to prevent fragmentation, but can still result in some fragmentation. One of the biggest steps these filesystems perform is to reserve space at the end of new files to allow them to grow in the future. Once a file outgrows its reserved space, it will need to fragment to accommodate the rest of the file. You usually only find a 1% or less fragmentation rate on ext3 partitions, and almost never over 5%. One problem with ext3 fragmentation is that there are a lack of good tools for the filesystem, though ext2 does offer an offline defragmenting tool.
Reference: http://www.itworld.com/Comp/3380/nls_unixfrag040929/index.html - empeethree, on 10/12/2007, -5/+67they dig it to go back and read it when the server is up.
- libertao, on 10/12/2007, -10/+66http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant
- po43292, on 10/12/2007, -0/+53I use pencil and paper to write all the 1s and 0s for backup of my important files.
- TiKoZ, on 10/12/2007, -22/+62Congratulations.
- bentrop, on 10/12/2007, -5/+39I don't get it. The myth that ext3 or ReiserFS don't fragment is about as old and as false as the myth that NTFS doesn't fragment. All of them do quite a good job at keeping files in one piece, but all of them fail in the end, especially once the hard drive fills up and the user doesn't leave enough empty space.
It goes without doubt that ext3 does a significantly better job than NTFS but it's also slightly harder to defrag.
I do not get, why every idiotic and wrong comment like "ext3 takes 0 mins to defrag... muahahahahahaha!" gets dugg up while insightful and correct comments like that by fourtythreek get dugg down.
On a related note: I'm not exactly sure what to do with this article. Yes, the build in antique defrag-tool in Windows 2000 and higher is incredibly slow and doesn't to a very thorough job. But the author of the article shows a significant lack of expertise in this area and there are quite a few pieces of false information and examples in his text. Therefore it's hard for me to trust his advise. I won't bury it, because PowerDefrag might be a good tool (and most likely better than the old build-in Diskeeper version) but I can't digg it either. - MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36"journaling filesystems ftw!"
It is not the journaling. If it was then NTFS would not need constant defragging either. NTFS is journaled. - isleshocky77, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32The second comment has a google cache of the site.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32Blah blah blah.
You use a mac. Okay. Nobody cares. - digitarius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28@Xsuite:
You have to watch out with those Acers. For some reasons all their XP machines shipped with FAT32 instead of NTFS. That might have been the issue. - screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22It's a test to make sure you are human, and can think for yourself. We are always amazed when you pass it.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Ever notice how Mark Russinovich (Sysinternals) has single-handledly done more for improving Windows over the past couple of years than 1,000 MS cubicle monkeys have managed to do in a decade?
- sammyc53, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Tape, really? Welcome to the 21st century, where there are options that don't have a 40% failure rate.
- gameforge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16It's not that the filesystems don't fragment to begin with, it's just that it isn't nearly as severe, and is not detrimental to the computer's performance given the way files are typically accessed and the way that most UNIX fs' (including JFS, which was not mentioned) write files to begin with. (fortythreek pointed this out). This partially applies to NTFS to.
But, with regards to 85+% full filesystems, NTFS isn't really any better... while defragmenting might have some positive effect on read/write performance, it's generally bad to let any volume get that full in any OS, and defragmenting a volume that full will take an awfully long time no matter what software you use. It will take less time for regularly updated files to become fragmented again, causing you to defragment more often - so while JFS or Ext3 won't perform as well as they should, you'll spend a lot of time slowly defragmenting NTFS in the same situation.
Generally speaking, if you're serious about maintaining your NTFS volumes Diskeeper isn't that expensive and it gives you an awful lot of flexibility regarding how and when your filesystem is defragmented (particularly "how"). The included defragmenter that Windows provides (XP anyway) is a substantially dumbed-down, bare version of Diskeeper to begin with. Once you find the right frequency to do the various types of defragmenting, you never really have to spend a lot of time on it anymore.
I, on the other hand, don't give a flying crap about my NTFS volumes, have never defragmented any of them in years and still get adequate performance out of them simply because I don't stuff them to the gills. NTFS is a lot different than FAT was in this regard. - markp93, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19The short of it, run the Power Defragmenter after you download it from this site.. the latest version includes the 'contig' program:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Hard-Disk-Utils/Power-Defragmenter.shtml - c0r3file, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Digg: the fastest way to frag your lame webserver.
- xsuite, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22Doing this corrupted my Acer's Harddrive :(
Has anyone else had any luck with this method? - screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I should make a page that is nothing but a 404 error. Then submit it with a title like, "Bush Commits Treason!"
After it gets 1000 diggs, I replace the 404 with a bunch of ads, or a goatse image. - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13You don't *want* all files packed together at the front of the drive. That was one of the big failings of the FAT defragmenter, because it means that as soon as *any* data is appended to *any* file, another fragment has to be created. Free-space consolidation is not "optimizing".
Keeping a buffer zone of free space between files gives them room to grow without fragmenting. - ericesque, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14We all really have too much time on our hands if we're bickering about defragging.
No MY hard drive defrags better!!1!11 - indyGuy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17or, "the fastest way to crash wordpress" = digg effect
- Buttercup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@greatblackowl.
moving a file into a different directory shouldn't actually change anything about a file (in any FS, for that matter), but rather would change it's index. its a complete waste to physically relocate a file just because we change the index. - trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@Sarki
You're wrong and here is why.
When windows writes files it writes it writes them sequentially one after the next with no space between them. If you edit a file which has no room to sequentially expand then it has to fragment the file.
What we need is a defragger & padder which defrags the files on the hard drive, then pads space around them so they can grow more naturally. - fantasticjon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13contig.exe -s -v c:*.*
Who needs power defragmenter? You can defrag the whole drive using just contig. Run contig once to except the EULA. Then schedule the above command to run once a month.
works on 2000 too. - MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11We use more harddrives to backup... It's cheaper than tapes now a days, and a hell of a lot more reliable.
- Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"It seems to me that one of the differences between NTFS and FAT32, for instance, is that NTFS doesn't really move files, but rather notes via the filesystem where something is. The result is faster (read: instant) file-moving within a partition."
Pretty much all filesystems do that, including FAT. - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Not quite true. Linux filesystems are designed to avoid fragmenting badly under typical usage, but they're not immune.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Contig is Extremely old news, and to be honest its not a true defragment anyway. It does not move the files close together, its leaves huge gaps between the defragmented files meaning that new files will be written into these gaps.
The real culprit slowing most machines down is when the MFT get fragmented, (usualy on DELL machines where windows is all copies off a machine install, and not installed directly on that hard drive giving the MFT a change to write itself first.) and the only solution to this is an Offline Defrag. (no pagedefrag does not do an offline defrag of the MFT)
The only product I know of that does a proper MFT defrag is O&O Defrag. Get the 30 day trial, fix your MFT, then you'll never have to worry about it again. - evoix9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Better mirror that has the pictures and not just text: via google cache
http://72.14.253.104/search?hs=sUq&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fvistarewired.com%2F2007%2F02%2F15%2Fdefragment%2F&btnG=Search - ericesque, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9stopher @
I do the same thing. Digg needs some kind of bookmark feature where you see a list of your 'come back and check it' bookmarks in a sidebar instead of a list of 'top stories' that you can already find by going to the frontpage... - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Wow. I have now read the article, and this is the sum total content: User PowerDefrag.
898 diggs for a story which doesn't even have a functioning link, and which is nothing but spam for a piece of software. I don't know what's going on here, but this is *****. - MackDiesel2010, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I like programs that take a long time; it makes me feel like they're doing something.
- DogzOfWar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Not sure if it works with Windows Vista, but PageDefrag ( http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/FileAndDisk/PageDefrag.mspx ) from the guys at SysInternals, defragments all sorts of system files at bootup time. It's great for defragmenting files in use when you'd normally run it.
One thing I do it to set your page file to be one constant size (say 1 gig), and run pagedefrag. Keeps the system running nice and smooth. - sipsyrup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5where can you get one of these... padders?
- twertyto, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I'm going to start to digg down smug-ass post that begin "comment abuse..." before posting a mirror.
It's getting very annoying. Comment abuse (yes this one counts) is so rampant no one cares anymore.
BTW if you actually do still care then take the gigantic stick out of your ass. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I wounder if MS would ever put ZFS in the next version of Windows since Apple and FreeBSD have (And Solaris obviously), it would be nice to have one file system to rule them all. Although we would still need it under Linux (damn GPLv2/GPLv3 incompatibilities, would be nice to have a GPLv2 that specifically allows linking to GPLv3 or something).
NTFS is kinda dated (although I guess MS probably update it with windows versions) and its replacement (which was dropped from vista anyway) WinFS, isn't really a filesystem, just a database on top of NTFS. - tenken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Actually that would be: "format c: /q" for quick format ;)
- Surreal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I didn't see any information in the link above that supported the mac claim that leopard does it for you.
- kitwaites, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@digitarius:
Acer deliberately did that on the basis that it's easy to convert from FAT32 to NTFS (one line command) but not vice-versa, so that if people were using small amounts of RAM or small, slow spinning HDDs then it would be better for them to keep it as FAT. They're shipping everything as NTFS for Vista, though. -
Show 51 - 100 of 151 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is