K
Ken Blake
Possible, but unlikely. What you say used to almost always be true,
but modern defraggers are much less susceptible to that problem.
Possible, but unlikely. What you say used to almost always be true,
but modern defraggers are much less susceptible to that problem.
R
R. C. White
?Hi, Andrew.
NTFS is a "journaling" file system - unlike FATx.
So it SHOULD be safe from unexpected power loss: Even if the write is
interrupted, the original is still accessible; even if the interruption
happens before or during deletion of the old file , the new copy has already
been written and is safe in its new location. ;<)
I suppose it's still possible to lose a file - or the pointer to it, but
NTFS has reduced the risk to NEAR zero. But I still use a UPS for that and
many other reasons.
RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-9/30/10)
Windows Live Mail Version 2011 (Build 15.4.3502.0922) in Win7 Ultimate x64
SP1 RC
"Andrew Rossmann" wrote in message
outage. They use a standard Windows API. I assume it probably uses the
safe way: copy data to new location first, then adjust directory info to
point to it, then free up old space. Given NTFS's robustness and ability
to keep track of incopmlete changes, it will probably fix itself.
Yes. I'm a non-techie, but I think that's what they mean when they say that
NTFS is a "journaling" file system - unlike FATx.
So it SHOULD be safe from unexpected power loss: Even if the write is
interrupted, the original is still accessible; even if the interruption
happens before or during deletion of the old file , the new copy has already
been written and is safe in its new location. ;<)
I suppose it's still possible to lose a file - or the pointer to it, but
NTFS has reduced the risk to NEAR zero. But I still use a UPS for that and
many other reasons.
RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-9/30/10)
Windows Live Mail Version 2011 (Build 15.4.3502.0922) in Win7 Ultimate x64
SP1 RC
"Andrew Rossmann" wrote in message
It shouldn't be much different than regular data access during a power
outage. They use a standard Windows API. I assume it probably uses the
safe way: copy data to new location first, then adjust directory info to
point to it, then free up old space. Given NTFS's robustness and ability
to keep track of incopmlete changes, it will probably fix itself.
D
Dave \Crash\ Dummy
I'm sure the original isn't deleted until it has been successfullyKen said:
copied, like a "move" operation.
J
Jack
Unless you're using FAT32, don't worry about it. NTFS disks run yearsTurtle said:
without defragging.
J
Jack
Unless you're using FAT32, don't worry about it. NTFS disks run yearsTurtle said:
without defragging.
J
Jack
Unless you're using FAT32, don't worry about it. NTFS disks run yearsTurtle said:
without defragging.
D
Dave \Crash\ Dummy
A UPS isn't needed so much to protect the stuff on disk as to protectR. C. White said:
the stuff in memory that hasn't been written to disk, yet.
E
Ed Cryer
Quite agree! My 650MB NTFS C drive needs defragging quite regularly. I
constantly copy 4 or 5 DVDs at a time to it, and then erase them after
burning.
Ed
C
Char Jackson
First, before anyone asks, you obviously meant 650GB.
What criteria are you using to determine that your drive "needs"
defragging? What symptoms are you seeing before, and what happens
after?
I have a system here that gets used heavily, was built about 3.5 years
ago, is running XP Pro SP3, has never been defragged in its life, and
Perfect Disk shows the system drive to be less than 1% fragmented. I
have another system, built about 2.5 years ago, also running XP Pro
SP3, last defragged about 1.5 years ago (with no performance
improvement noted), and now Perfect Disk reports that the system drive
is 1% fragmented. In both cases, Perfect Disk says no defrag is
needed.
My Win 7 system has only been running about 4 months now and is
primarily a media center, so usage is light and defrag will never be
needed.
I'm just curious what all of this defragging being discussed is
actually accomplishing. Windows already does a decent job of
optimizing its primary hard drive, and its well known that the NTFS
filesystem doesn't suffer much from file fragmentation (relative to
FAT, anyway), so I'm not sure what the benefits are. For the record, I
don't think defragging does any harm, (meaning I think it's safe and
doesn't hurt performance except during the actual defrag process), but
I'm also not convinced it does measurable good on current systems.
It's certainly nothing a person would notice without fairly
sophisticated measuring tools.
G
Gene E. Bloch
This is obviously an instantiation of the Char Jackson Theory of
Relativity
Yes, that one is worse. But I might not be as calm as you in the first
case either...
T
Turtle
Hi everyone,
My Scheduler is set weekly for 1 o`'clock in the morning.
I never have the computer on at that time.
John
Thanks for the answers.
My Scheduler is set weekly for 1 o`'clock in the morning.
I never have the computer on at that time.
John
T
Turtle
Hi,
Thanx
John
OK, I was not sure if it works that way or not.
Thanx
John
E
Ed Cryer
I thank you for your reply, Alias. It showed me Char Jackson's post as
well. For some reason I didn't get that, so I looked at recent posts and
found that I hadn't got any of the ones from him.
Then I tried in Google groups, but couldn't find this group in there.
I'll have to contact my news-server and ask him why his posts are
missing. Please give me the message ID plus date & time of this one
you've replied to.
Ed
E
Ed Cryer
Right, thanks. I've found him on aioe.org. I'll question Ray Banana
about it in e-s-support.
Ed
G
Gene E. Bloch
That is a setting inside each schedule entry, so each entry can have its
own behavior.
That said, ISTRC that the defrag entry is set by default to work that
way.
G
greenlantern
Turtle wrote on 11/30/2010 09:18 ET
Were your hard drives okay prior to the defrag
A good quality third party automatic defragmenter is still better than th
Windows defragmenter because it would be faster, truly automatic, easier t
customize for each drive and defrag all the files without trouble
Look up automatic defragmenters that have been certified my Microsoft and yo
should be able to get a safe and reliable defrag utility.
O&O may not be a good option. Was the version you tried certified for W7
Were your hard drives okay prior to the defrag
A good quality third party automatic defragmenter is still better than th
Windows defragmenter because it would be faster, truly automatic, easier t
customize for each drive and defrag all the files without trouble
Look up automatic defragmenters that have been certified my Microsoft and yo
should be able to get a safe and reliable defrag utility.
E
Ed Cryer
Ray's answer;
"Oops. False lamietard positive due to a stray blank in the
regex. Fixed."
Well, that kind of leaves me in the dark! But Char has been promoted,
like a pawn reaching the eighth rank. He will henceforward appear on
another news-server!
First we take Manhattan, and then we take Berlin!
Ed
C
Char Jackson
Cool, I guess. Thanks for following up.
P
Paul
Yeah, I can see your posts now. Before, people were replying to you,Char said:
and your posts were invisible.
Paul
J
Jason
Wouldn't it better that the large files are defraged?