Is 34 percent the hard disk fragmentation is much ? :-)

[Pawelk198604]

Recently I ran AVG Defrag that analyzed the fragmentation on disks, installation program, pointed out that I have 34% fragmentation on the system partition C, and recommended that "full defragmentation" but why it goes so damn slow. I started the defragmentation some one and a half hours ago, and far did defragmentation only 22% of the total disk C drive has 465 GB capacity,.

[KvickFlygarn87]

Yes. 34% is quite a lot.

Do you even defrag bro?

[phoenix_ca]

This is very odd for the Science Labs.

If you're using a mechanical drive, it goes slowly because mechanical drives are pretty slow (well, relatively speaking; in reality the platters rotate fast enough to create hurricane-force winds inside the darn thing), particularly at seeking between non-contiguous sectors, which is what defragmentation has to do pretty much the entire time.

I'd suggest Smart Defrag 3. It's free and offers optimization too (sticking files that are together and will be accessed together in a row instead of all over the place), just mind that you use the custom install and deselect all the "Install Yahoo toolbar and make Yahoo run your browser from now until the end of time GOOD LUCK EVER REMOVING THIS" madness.

All said, this is exactly the reason why the OS should not fragment files when writing them to a drive. Linux and OS X have been doing it for years now. Microsoft really has no excuse on this. (OS X and Linux have kinda spoiled me in that regard too. It wasn't until recently I remembered that Windows 7 is remarkably stupid in how it deals with files and that I need to actually defragment the damn thing. You know when people ask why people use Apple computers? This is one of those reasons OS X can make for a better workstation, especially when dealing with massive files. Just throwing that out there.)

Edited June 11, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[Dkmdlb]

I'll put a plug in for Defraggler (like I did in that other thread).

[Pawelk198604]

I'll put a plug in for Defraggler (like I did in that other thread).

For now, AVG defrag does what it can to defragment my system partition, but it does so very slowly and AVG advertising said that their system maintenance programs are fastest on market

[xcorps]

LOL at HDD.

SDD for OS bro.

It makes me a bit sad that I was able to communicate several sentences of information with those two fragments.

[Pawelk198604]

LOL at HDD.

SDD for OS bro.

It makes me a bit sad that I was able to communicate several sentences of information with those two fragments.

SDD? does it good? I heard that are expansive

[xcorps]

It is more expensive per GB, but the performance gains are truly worth it. Basically it's RAM, just a little slower. Write endurance on modern drives is a non issue for the typical user.

Plextor M5M 256G (you can get one for 174$)for me loads to desktop from power off in less than 15 seconds. Fragmentation is not an issue because you have no mechanical read/write apparatus. Plenty of room for the OS and quite a few games. I have a TB and a half of HD storage as well.

[KvickFlygarn87]

True. They are expensive. But you don't need a big one, a 128GB SSD will pull it off just fine. You just need the OS on there and the essentials, then you can put everything else on an HDD.

[phoenix_ca]

SSD's are waaaaay more expensive than mechanical drives per unit of storage. They also have a finite number of read/write cycles. If you're going to get one, go with Intel. They actually know what quality control is and the **** they put their drives through is insane. o.O

SSD for speed, HDD for storage or tape if you have looooots of data to back-up.

All that said I'd still classify an SSD as something of a luxury item for computers. They're great and awesome and all, but you can live without one. (Once something is loaded to RAM it ceases to matter anyway; it's almost certainly one of the last things you should consider upgrading, unless you're actually doing something that would benefit from really fast read/write to non-volatile media...the only thing that comes to mind is raw video and photo editing.)

[vger]

+1 for SSD. I sacced a whole TB of storage space to have an SSD as my OS drive. One of the most worthwhile upgrades I ever put into my PC.

[xcorps]

SSD's are waaaaay more expensive than mechanical drives per unit of storage. They also have a finite number of read/write cycles. If you're going to get one, go with Intel. They actually know what quality control is and the **** they put their drives through is insane. o.O

They can read forever. What you are referring to is called write endurance. Write endurance for a typical user begins to become an issue after 10 YEARS of daily use. That means it is not an issue, because the MTBF for common HDD (non high end drives like Seagate) is actually less than 10 years. Write endurance is an issue for high traffic servers. Please do not confuse the issue.

Plextor and OCZ make the best SDD's. Intel I don't think would be in my list of Top 10, or even top 20.

[Pawelk198604]

SSD for speed, HDD for storage or tape if you have looooots of data to back-up.

Tapes, people still use tapes for recording computer data?

I thought they went out from use, long before I was born: D

Although I remember when I was a kid and my older brother borrowed a computer from his best friend. I remember that this computer is loaded game from audio tape,

It took forever to load the game from the tape also those awful sounds:D

[78stonewobble]

Tapes, people still use tapes for recording computer data?

I thought they went out from use, long before I was born: D

Although I remember when I was a kid and my older brother borrowed a computer from his best friend. I remember that this computer is loaded game from audio tape,

It took forever to load the game from the tape also those awful sounds:D

If we're talking large amounts of data? Sure, tape is certainly still used, when you need to store or backup tens or hundreds of petabytes of data.

Raid is not backup.

But yeah, I remember having an old amstrad something that loaded from tape too. Allthough you could get a floppy reader too.

PS: At others saying bare essentials on the SSD... but, but, but ... my bare essentials include 600+ gb worth of games ... and those ssd's might still be too pricey for my tastes.

[ecat]

For defragging I used to use mydefrag http://www.mydefrag.com/ . Does it work with Win8? I've no idea, in fact I've not run a defrag since installing Win7.

SSDs are fast, Intel and Samsung lead in reliability last time I looked but they should all be around the level of reliability of mechanicals.

SSD's are expensive per GB, but quiet, low power so they have their advantages.

I've never understood the the idea of having a SSD just for the OS. How often do you load the OS? Once per boot. Okay, there are other files that form part of the OS install that load as required by various applications but I can cope with a second or two extra on an applications load time if that is what it comes down to.

Putting your OS on a SSD will of course do nothing to help fragmentation on other drives.

So, I'm a SSD hater right? Wrong. They have their uses. I have a cheap 60GB SSD on this PC, it's used as a caching drive courtesy of Intel's "Rapid Storage Technology" hardware and driver. All the cost effectiveness of 2TB mechanical drives at about 75% of SSD speed. Boot time on a good day is about 23 seconds for those keeping score. Of course not everything will fit into 60GB but the Intel software does a good job of ensuring the most used files are there: Some of the OS, my most used applications and data, non of this limited to a single partition and as my habits change the cache updates automatically. Do I notice a slow down when something is loaded from the mechanicals? Sure, but 2x2TB mechs (in RAID 1) + 60GB SSD cost me about £150 so I can live with the occasional, minor inconvenience.

Give me a call when a pair 2TB SSDs can be had for £100, until then I think I'll stick with what I have.

[xcorps]

I've never understood the the idea of having a SSD just for the OS.

Page file just for starters...You can get a 200% boost in laptop performance just by adding an SDD.

I have a cheap 60GB SSD on this

If you had a 128 or 256 you would have faster boot times because the larger drives have more NAND chips...

[phoenix_ca]

Tapes, people still use tapes for recording computer data?

I thought they went out from use, long before I was born: D

The drives to read and write to them are expensive as all hell (like, $1,500 a piece), but the media (the tapes themselves) are dirt cheap per unit of storage, and they can be incredibly high density. This makes them extremely effective for long-term, large storage (like needing to store petabytes of data; it sounds insane but there are institutions that do need that kind of storage, but they don't need it all to be accessible immediately).

They can read forever. What you are referring to is called write endurance. Write endurance for a typical user begins to become an issue after 10 YEARS of daily use. That means it is not an issue, because the MTBF for common HDD (non high end drives like Seagate) is actually less than 10 years. Write endurance is an issue for high traffic servers. Please do not confuse the issue.

Plextor and OCZ make the best SDD's. Intel I don't think would be in my list of Top 10, or even top 20.

That really depends on what you consider normal use. If you're using them in a workstation, you can work through whatever endurance it might have in far less time. Copying 60-200GB files over and over will take a toll. Maybe I'm just more sensitive to this problem because I do some work like this, blasting through terabyte upon terabyte of data. O.o

As for Intel, their performance is stable and predictable. On top of that Intel has some brutal QA standards, for all their tech.

Edited June 11, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[xcorps]

The SATA controllers that Intel makes are quite good. But the NAND chips used in the Intel drives don't match the performance of quite a few other manufacturers, many of which use the Intel controllers. That may have changed in the most recent drive Intel released, I don't know.

Maybe I'm just more sensitive to this problem because I do some work like this, blasting through terabyte upon terabyte of data. O.o

http://www.storagesearch.com/ssdmyths-endurance.html

Very informative article written by a professional.

[ecat]

Page file just for starters...You can get a 200% boost in laptop performance just by adding an SDD.

Laptop mechs are designed for low power consumption, an average desktop drive is probably twice as fast and I'd have thought an SSD would be nearer 4 times as fast.

If you had a 128 or 256 you would have faster boot times because the larger drives have more NAND chips...

It's a bottom of the range OCZ, almost anything would be faster! One can even argue a cache drive should be SLC but it's done the job well for a few years.

What I really like the look of are the new PCIe based drives, eg http://www.anandtech.com/show/8006/samsung-ssd-xp941-review-the-pcie-era-is-here . But it's early days for this new interface, cost is still a major problem and with the likes of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferroelectric_RAM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoresistive_random-access_memory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor

all promising major speed improvements. No. I'll await the day flash is £25 per TB and evaluate what's available at the time.

This is the great thing about the PC hardware market: See something you like today but think it's too expensive? Wait 12 months and you'll find something better, faster and cheaper It's been this way for over 30 years now, permanent deflation where companies are forced to survive on innovation. Imagine the kind of cars we'd all be driving if the automotive industry had followed a similar trend

[xcorps]

Laptop mechs are designed for low power consumption, an average desktop drive is probably twice as fast and I'd have thought an SSD would be nearer 4 times as fast

I should have made my post better, I was talking about performance benchmarks and not actual speed. Very subjective point of view, I admit.

[Camacha]

That really depends on what you consider normal use. If you're using them in a workstation, you can work through whatever endurance it might have in far less time. Copying 60-200GB files over and over will take a toll. Maybe I'm just more sensitive to this problem because I do some work like this, blasting through terabyte upon terabyte of data. O.o

You have to write ridiculous amounts of data to wear out your SSD before you want to economically replace it. Who still works with 12 year old HDD's? No one. Do not forget that HDD's are not without flaws either, they also tend to become unreliable after a certain amount of use and age.

When push comes to shove only servers tend to generate the bizarre traffic needed to wear out an SSD and guess what: they also use special HDD's for those For mortals and even crazy power users the problem is a theoretical one. If you really worry about it you should pick the right SSD (different memory types wear out at different rates). There is a good chance the SSD will still last 20 years. I am quite sure you can afford a new one by then.

But hey, no one said you cannot combine the two. If you have some kind of exceptional workload that can really use huge sequential reads and writes and nothing else, sure, put your OS on the SSD for a responsive system and do your weird writing on the HDD.

Tl;dr: normal users and power users do not, I repeat, DO NOT have to worry about SSD's wearing out. It some myth that people keep telling each other.

As for Intel, their performance is stable and predictable. On top of that Intel has some brutal QA standards, for all their tech.

Crucial and Samsung make excellent SSD's too. In fact, I would recommend an M500 over an Intel for various reasons, and they are cheap (for an SSD) to boot.

Even Intel does not have a spotless record when it comes to SSD's, by the way.

[Camacha]

It's a bottom of the range OCZ, almost anything would be faster! One can even argue a cache drive should be SLC but it's done the job well for a few years.

Beware, OCZ has a horrible track record and had even worse business practices. No wonder they went bankrupt. I would treat any data on that disk as expendable. Keep good backups at all times.

I am not trying to scare you, but these drives are trouble.

[xcorps]

Beware, OCZ has a horrible track record and had even worse business practices. No wonder they went bankrupt. I would treat any data on that disk as expendable. Keep good backups at all times.

I am not trying to scare you, but these drives are trouble.

Only because of that controller fiasco, Sandstorm, Sandtrack or whatever it was called. After that got ironed out they made some high end high performance drives.

[Camacha]

Only because of that controller fiasco, Sandstorm, Sandtrack or whatever it was called. After that got ironed out they made some high end high performance drives.

Thing is, they never got it ironed out. They released fix after fix and nothing changed. The controller/firmware was bad, the SSD's they turned out were bad, their business practices were bad and their support was bad. Due to false advertising people kept buying their crap, but you truly would not want to give it away for free. It took the market a while to pick up on that, but they finally did and now OCZ is bankrupt.

I pride myself on the fact that I recommend pretty much any brand (Intel/AMD/Nvidia/Apple/whatever) when the situation calls for it, as different people have different needs, but OCZ was the one exception I made. Under no circumstances recommending or buying and OCZ drive was a good deal. Sure, they had a lot of bad luck with the controller they used, but did not take the right steps to fix the problem, help the people in trouble.They just kept on pushing bad drive after bad drive out the door.

The controller was called Sandforce, by the way. Except for Intels, stay clear of those whatever the brand.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Camacha

[Nuke]

the performance of mechanical hard drives is a major bottleneck on a modern system. i use them pretty much exclusively for backup purposes. they are also good for static data storage. ssds are definitely worth it for the decreased loading times for pretty much every piece of software one could use, especially your os. it was one of the few times in recent memory that an upgrade actually felt like an upgrade.