Do disk defraggers check file systems first?

"Ato_Zee" <ato_zee@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:%k2zm.23682$301.19455@newsfe14.ams2...
>
> On 7-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available@request.nl> wrote:
>
>> >> Smart placement is just bells and
>> >> > whistles.
>> >>
>> >> No it isn't
>
> It is bells and whistles because it only benefits the
> defragger by placing infrequently changed or accessed
> files at the start of the drive, in non-fragmented
> blocks.

huh? infrequently used files at the start of the drive?

> Where they do not get fragmented, so do
> net repeatedly have to be defraged at each
> defragmentation cycle.
> The free MS utility does an adequate job.
>
> System performance is a hardware issue,
> Drive cache size, spin speed, access time,
> pagefile optimisation, and a few other variables.

Like fragmentation and placement on disk

> Try a few tests for yourself on drives that have
> only been defraged with the MS utility, and
> then on drives that have been detraged with
> one of the cited utilities that has Smart Placement.

Done that

>
>> I am saying that a defragger that goes beyond that
>>MS bult in defraggers
>> don"t have to cost money.
>
> And is unlikely to yield any performance improvement,

And thats where you are wrong

> stick with the MS one and invest in backup media.
> Better use of your money.

The money isn't an issue as stated before because there are free ones.

On 9-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available@request.nl> wrote:

> > System performance is a hardware issue,
> > Drive cache size, spin speed, access time,
> > pagefile optimisation, and a few other variables.
>
> Like fragmentation and placement on disk

Not so, the drive can more than adequately cope
with fragmentation. With adequate RAM drive
access is not an issue. Just check your
page faults with an MS defrag optimised drive
versus one with Smart Placement, no difference.
No difference either in Sandra benchmarks.

> > stick with the MS one and invest in backup media.
> > Better use of your money.
>
> The money isn't an issue as stated before because
> there are free ones.

Free media?

"Ato_Zee" <ato_zee@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:dYCzm.30681$qM1.19339@newsfe19.ams2...
>
> On 9-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available@request.nl> wrote:
>
>> > System performance is a hardware issue,
>> > Drive cache size, spin speed, access time,
>> > pagefile optimisation, and a few other variables.
>>
>> Like fragmentation and placement on disk
>
> Not so, the drive can more than adequately cope
> with fragmentation.

Ah, so a drive copes with fragmentation itself?

> With adequate RAM drive
> access is not an issue.

At one point a file has to be read from disk /written to disk. No matter the
amount of memory a fragmented file will take longer than an unfragmented
file placed near the start of the disk.

> Just check your
> page faults with an MS defrag optimised drive
> versus one with Smart Placement, no difference.

File fragmentation is not limited to paging. It is unclear to me what you're
trying to argue here. You're constantly mixing things up. See where you got
us from the simple question 'do defraggers check the file system' all the
way here.

"Ato_Zee" <ato_zee@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:JEYym.14389$Xz6.8172@newsfe18.ams2...
>
> On 7-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available@request.nl> wrote:
>
>> >> He only asked if defraggers checked a volume prior to moving data. So,
>> >> yes/no will do.
>
> You can only say yes or no for a specific defragger, but not
> for defraggers as a generalisation.
>
>> He didn't ask for defraggers to fix things.
>
> If OP is not interested in fixing things the query has no
> meaning. Concern about checking the volume implies
> concern about data integrity.

Of course it has. He's possibly afraid a defragger may corrupt a file system
in inconsistent state. That's something entirely different than asking a
defragger to fix corruption.

On 9-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available@request.nl> wrote:

> He's possibly afraid a defragger may corrupt a file system
> in inconsistent state. That's something entirely different than asking a
> defragger to fix corruption

There are defraggers that will further corrupt a file system
that is in an inconsistent state.
There is however no comparison checkbox for
defraggers. With ticks or crosses for various types
of corruption/inconsistency of the file system.
All should stop with an explanation if they find an
inconsistency, many don't.
I've seen defraggers that stop if the mirror MFT
is inconsistent, others ignore it.
Some try to move cross linked files, others stop.
Some duplicate orphaned files in the defrag
process, others ignore them.
So as I pointed out there is no yes/no answer
unless you are very specific about what defragger
you are referring to and what inconsistencies in
the file system you are concerned about.
The MS$ one catches most inconsistencies and
suggests a defrag/repair at the next reboot.
If it reports a repair log then it is adviseable
to check that the mirror MFT is consistent
with the master MFT, frequently, after MS$ has
done its repair these are inconsistent.
CHKDSK seems to have problems coping with
inconsistencies between the MFT and the
mirror MFT.
Which is why you need a proven and tested
backup system.

Joep wrote
> Ato_Zee <ato_zee@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Joep <available@request.nl> wrote

>>>> System performance is a hardware issue,
>>>> Drive cache size, spin speed, access time,
>>>> pagefile optimisation, and a few other variables.

>>> Like fragmentation and placement on disk

>> Not so, the drive can more than adequately cope with fragmentation.

> Ah, so a drive copes with fragmentation itself?

He didnt say that.

>> With adequate RAM drive access is not an issue.

> At one point a file has to be read from disk /written to disk.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fellas ?

> No matter the amount of memory a fragmented file will take longer than an unfragmented file placed near the start of
> the disk.

Wrong when its a media file and the access to the
file is entirely dependant on the media play speed.

Fragmentation is completely irrelevant to how long it takes to move thru the file.

"Ato_Zee" <ato_zee@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
newsEHzm.15881$Tt7.4506@newsfe20.ams2...
>
> On 9-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available@request.nl> wrote:
>
>> He's possibly afraid a defragger may corrupt a file system
>> in inconsistent state. That's something entirely different than asking a
>> defragger to fix corruption
>
> There are defraggers that will further corrupt a file system
> that is in an inconsistent state.
> There is however no comparison checkbox for
> defraggers. With ticks or crosses for various types
> of corruption/inconsistency of the file system.
> All should stop with an explanation if they find an
> inconsistency, many don't.

Yes, so this finally answers OP's question.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:7ja4mmF34o0hlU1@mid.individual.net...
> Joep wrote
>> Ato_Zee <ato_zee@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Joep <available@request.nl> wrote
>
>>>>> System performance is a hardware issue,
>>>>> Drive cache size, spin speed, access time,
>>>>> pagefile optimisation, and a few other variables.
>
>>>> Like fragmentation and placement on disk
>
>>> Not so, the drive can more than adequately cope with fragmentation.
>
>> Ah, so a drive copes with fragmentation itself?
>
> He didnt say that.

It's more productive if you then try to explain to me what it is he's
saying.

>
>>> With adequate RAM drive access is not an issue.
>
>> At one point a file has to be read from disk /written to disk.
>
> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fellas ?
>
>> No matter the amount of memory a fragmented file will take longer than an
>> unfragmented file placed near the start of the disk.
>
> Wrong when its a media file and the access to the
> file is entirely dependant on the media play speed.

Yes, and so?

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:56:16 +0200, "Joep" <available@request.nl> wrote:

>"Ato_Zee" <ato_zee@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
>newsEHzm.15881$Tt7.4506@newsfe20.ams2...
>>
>> On 9-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available@request.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> He's possibly afraid a defragger may corrupt a file system
>>> in inconsistent state. That's something entirely different than asking a
>>> defragger to fix corruption
>>
>> There are defraggers that will further corrupt a file system
>> that is in an inconsistent state.
>> There is however no comparison checkbox for
>> defraggers. With ticks or crosses for various types
>> of corruption/inconsistency of the file system.
>> All should stop with an explanation if they find an
>> inconsistency, many don't.
>
>Yes, so this finally answers OP's question.

O&O Defrag can be set to run a check of the filesystem before starting.
--
Michael Cecil
http://home.roadrunner.com/~macecil/
http://home.roadrunner.com/~safehex/
http://home.roadrunner.com/~macecil/hackingw7/

Joep wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Joep wrote
>>> Ato_Zee <ato_zee@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> Joep <available@request.nl> wrote

>>>>>> System performance is a hardware issue,
>>>>>> Drive cache size, spin speed, access time,
>>>>>> pagefile optimisation, and a few other variables.

>>>>> Like fragmentation and placement on disk

>>>> Not so, the drive can more than adequately cope with fragmentation.

>>> Ah, so a drive copes with fragmentation itself?

>> He didnt say that.

> It's more productive if you then try to explain to me what it is he's saying.

It makes a lot more sense for him to do that himself if he wants to.

>>>> With adequate RAM drive access is not an issue.

>>> At one point a file has to be read from disk /written to disk.

>> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fellas ?

>>> No matter the amount of memory a fragmented file will take longer
>>> than an unfragmented file placed near the start of the disk.

>> Wrong when its a media file and the access to the
>> file is entirely dependant on the media play speed.

> Yes, and so?

So you were just plain wrong.