arstechnica.com — "Now, according to Paul Thurrott, Windows Vista comes complete with an automatic defragmentation scheduler. The default is for the user's hard drives to be defragmented at 4:00 AM every Sunday, when presumably most people won't be doing other work on their computer."
Jul 21, 2006 View in Crawl 4
tenrecJul 21, 2006
Solution seems simple enough. When the user tries to shutdown and a defrag is scheduled/needed then just ask the user if they want to do a defrag then shut down or shut down immediately.
hamstereaterJul 21, 2006
Another shoutout here for Diskeeper :)
jammerdelrayJul 22, 2006
why not use smart scheduling....where it'll defrag the hard drive when it becomes fragmented? Something like Diskeeper uses and also arrange them for speedier access by actual file usage.
looklikecontestJul 22, 2006
This is silly, Abatrour has been dugg down to oblivion, twice, for stating that this feature already exists in Windows XP. Which is absolutely true.
senfoJul 22, 2006
I love how the Mac fanboys show up here and some how get off thinking they're experts on file systems. All of that think it can be done in a very short amount of time and with relatively few changes, are completely clueless. How can you even begin to make such a judgement without seeing the source code for the file system? And don't compare HFS to NTFS because the two are completely different. There's almost no similarities.If it were such a "trivial task" as some of you seem to think it is, don't you think Microsoft would have done it, already?Stop polluting the Internet with your brain-dead comments.
senfoJul 22, 2006
@nTensify,Add a daemon? First of all, that shows your ignorance. Windows has no daemons. However, I can ignore that for the second since Windows does have Services. But lets think about this for a moment. What business does any kind of file system code have in a service? Absolutely none, whatsoever.The file system code for Windows is more than likely in the kernel, where it belongs. Just like Linux, just like OSX and just like any other disk operating system worth a grain of salt.Go read the documentation over at <a class="user" href="http://www.namesys.com/.">http://www.namesys.com/.</a> After you've done that and comprehend it, then you can come back and we can talk. Until then, you're just blowing a bunch of hot air.
cquinndJul 23, 2006
They can set it to another day.
nofear1azJul 23, 2006
For all those that shutdown their computers don't have a clue....First... if you have an energy star compliant computer, you have all the energy saving capabilities for conserving power such as sleep mode. Second... It is actually far worse to keep turning your computer on and off everytime you use it, haven't you ever heard that it's better to let your Monitor to just go to sleep than to shut it off.WHY? because, shutting down and and turning on first off uses more power than conserving when using energy star sleep mode because of the burst of power it needs to initially kick-start the components on. Juice requirements are higher on turn-on than normal running times Also, it because of the initial higher juice jolting thru the components during a turn-on stage it actually shortens the life such as in Monitors. I gurantee a Monitor (not PC) will have a shorter life-span by turning it on and off every day than one that is left on all the time and using the sleep mode when not in use (which most monitors have these days).
jt32470Jul 23, 2006
Bah, just get Perfect disk!!!! Works like a charm...yeah it'll work like windows media player does...ha!
m00nmasterJul 25, 2006
"The thing is, as I was always brought to believe every time you introduce a new current to the system (by turning it on) it is actually a shock to the system and it is therefore better for the computer and it will last longer if it is left on."Okay, I need to put this myth to rest. Maybe it's off of a Microsoft page, but I'm sure they got this information from somewhere trusted. Google about shutting computers off, it is not a problem anymore and they can be shut off each night for many years without fear of damage to the internal parts."Turning your PC off uses more energy than leaving it on. Not true. The small surge of power you use when turning it on -- which varies per PC make and model -- is still much smaller than the amount you use in keeping it on for lengthy periods.""Turning your PC on and off wears it out. A decade ago, there was something to this, but not today, say Hershberg and others. It used to be that PC hard disks did not automatically park their heads when shut off, and that frequent on/off cycling could damage the hard disks. Today's PCs are designed to handle 40,000 on/off cycles before a failure, and that's a number you likely won't reach during the computer's five-to-seven-year life span."
mmaterieAug 10, 2006
Like CliffzDude pointed out earlier, every modern publicly-used file system fragments. I'm sure most people in here know why (if not read up on "squeeze"), and know it's not a bug. That doesn't mean that other technology can't and shouldn't be available to minimize fragmentation - such as Reiser's Tail-packing or Windows NTFS 3.x+ best-fit strategy and excess allocation buffer during file writes, or eliminating it as with automatic defragmentation. As it was pointed out earlier, anything done to minimize/eliminate fragmentation has a resource cost. The best solution is to mitigate the costs involved. Creating a non-fragmenting file system is doable, but it too has a resource cost. And quite simply, it's far easier to plug-in a technology than it is to build a solution at the core. That is essentially what doomed WinFS -there are cheaper ways to achieve similar results. While many dismiss marketing/advertising as bogus and wasteful, it is often the promotion of messages like "Windows file systems fragment" that starts the education process. Sure, not everyone needs that info, they've researched themselves. But nobody has time to learn everything about everything in IT. In many cases an "ad" highlighting an issue is what starts the ball rolling and opens discussions and investigations. Third-party defrag vendors are the primary reason why most people know about fragmentation. MS didn't try selling you on it, nor does Linux today. SysAdmins managing Windows know that MS typically doesn't publish a knowledge base article until after they have a solution. It's also important to note that the system I/O will impact how severely fragmentation affects performance on a given OS. That's significant point to remember when noticing a 4GB file in two pieces. Windows typically suffers minimal/negligible performance loss from file fragments when they get above a certain size (i.e. 64MB).For OSX users, go check out iDefrag. And yeah, whether or not the fragmentation you find affects your performance should be tested - i.e. does it matter?BTW: I'm the Product Manager at Diskeeper Corporation (formerly Executive Software), and handle both Technical and Marketing roles. For the earlier light-hearted sarcasm on "anti-trust" comment; that MS is adding a pre-scheduled defrag is good news for our company. While most of the negative comments in this thread are well intentioned, this is a step in the right direction for MS - it's just not all the way (which of course why I say it's good news).Are we worried about Vista's defrag - no, not really. It gives the novice something of a basic solution. It also quickly spreads the word to less technical people that defrag vendors might never reach with their message. The challenge is people who will believe it is the end of all their problems simply at face value (like those who believed that NTFS did not fragment when MS marketing touted the release of NT4) when it very well may not be. IMHO, those who really test it will know better. Blogs on Linux, Vista, defrag... <a class="user" href="http://www.diskeeperblog.com/.">http://www.diskeeperblog.com/.</a>
gelgodAug 10, 2006
@politech...a VERY stripped down version considering that it's based on technology that's at least 8 years old. You guys should all check out the feature set in Diskeeper 10. It's light years ahead of the built-in. And I'm not just saying that cause I work for Diskeeper!!I'm the graphic designer for Diskeeper Corporation (formerly Executive Software) and work on a Mac. I have learned sooo much about fragmentation that I ended up purchasing iDefrag for my Mac. Didn't really improve my performance much but was still able to find plenty of file fragments that were missed by the OS's automatic solution. I'm sure it would help a lot more once my drive is a bit more full. I'll continue to run it on a monthly basis until I can really notice system slows (then I'll start running it more frequently).I guess my point is that third party defragmenters will always be better than the built-ins. Otherwise they wouldn't exist.