Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

How to Defrag MBP?

XTRanger said:
The only change that I made to the machine was install and uninstall lots of programs.... and that leads me to believe that the HDD may be de__________ (you know what I am going to say, so I am not typing it, since it may tick you off:p )
Click to expand...

Again...

Sleep is a HARDWARE function. Not software. So the fragmentation of a hard drive has nothing to do at all with your sleep function. If you are choosing "Sleep" from the pull down menu in the Apple, then it's a system call to the hardware that is being delayed. Not by fragmentation, but by something else entirely.

DoFoT9 said:
hhmm does this have to be run from admin account? my password/s refuse to work!
Click to expand...

Yes, as only admin users are part of /etc/sudoers.

Of course, you can change the user within the shell to an admin user and then run the scripts.
 
XTRanger said:
I think apple screwed this one up by not having any maintainence tools in its OS. (please correct me if im wrong)
Click to expand...

Hehe. That's made me chuckle. Windows is probably the only OS from the 'modern' era which requires hand-holding such as user-initiated defragmenting. I can't think of any other OS that needs it. Such a shame that Windows jaundices peoples' views of how a computer's supposed to operate.
 
displaced said:
Hehe. That's made me chuckle. Windows is probably the only OS from the 'modern' era which requires hand-holding such as user-initiated defragmenting. I can't think of any other OS that needs it. Such a shame that Windows jaundices peoples' views of how a computer's supposed to operate.
Click to expand...

hhmmm supposed to operate... or has to be done to operate porperly??? :rolleyes: nah windoze computers run fairly good without having to defrag very often neway, thats what i have found neways..
 
Can someone explain what this means?


Moving a file to a new name does not change its Catalog Node ID (CNID), and copying it back to the original name will result in the copy having a different CNID.

or at least tell me if "having a different CNID" is a good thing or a bad thing.
 
dogbone said:
I think we're nearly done here. We laughed. We cried. It was a dizzying journey but we are all stronger for it.

I nominate this thread for the "defragging thread of the year"
Click to expand...

Haha, im sorry folks, i guess this wasnt a good start for a n00b here... but i'll try my best to avoid dumba$$ questions like there from now on.

and i understand now- user initiated defrag is not an essential task in OSX, and the fact that my computer takes 45secs to go to sleep is not due to fragmentation.



now only if my computer could go to sleep under 10 seconds.... I guess i'll make a fool outta myself again by asking this question in a related thread.


thanks for all the clarification folks!
 
janey said:
Imagine you have a piece of paper torn into 20 pieces scattered all over your front yard. Defragging would be getting all those pieces together, taping them, and filing the piece of paper appropriately in a cabinet somewhere so if you had to go look for the paper it will be easier and faster to find.
Click to expand...

Thank you :) You've been helpful.
 
Sooo.. since I was curious...

I used the iDefrag Demo to "analyze" one of my drives, and then I used SuperDuper! to clone that drive to another drive, and then used iDefrag Demo to "analyze" that cloned drive... Here are the results.

Fragmented disk "Dharma":

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2953/frag1nm9.th.jpg
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7834/frag2gu7.th.jpg

Cloned Disk "Losties":

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1820/2frag1rx3.th.jpg
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/2019/2frag2dh4.th.jpg

Make of this what you will.


I will note this, however:

While I will agree that a defragmentation makes a significant impact upon a drive that is incredibly fragmented (we're talking 60% or more), much of the time, people that defrag as a maintenance task only PERCEIVE their drive to be "faster". We're talking between a second and tenths of seconds. We see the same attitude with people who repair permissions and run maintenance scripts who claim their drives run faster. They don't. They just perceive them to because they've done "maintenance". Log rotation doesn't make your computer faster. :rolleyes:
 
yellow said:
Sooo.. since I was curious...

I used the iDefrag Demo to "analyze" one of my drives, and then I used SuperDuper! to clone that drive to another drive, and then used iDefrag Demo to "analyze" that cloned drive... Here are the results.

Fragmented disk "Dharma":

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2953/frag1nm9.th.jpg
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7834/frag2gu7.th.jpg

Cloned Disk "Losties":

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1820/2frag1rx3.th.jpg
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/2019/2frag2dh4.th.jpg

Make of this what you will.


I will note this, however:

While I will agree that a defragmentation makes a significant impact upon a drive that is incredibly fragmented (we're talking 60% or more), much of the time, people that defrag as a maintenance task only PERCEIVE their drive to be "faster". We're talking between a second and tenths of seconds. We see the same attitude with people who repair permissions and run maintenance scripts who claim their drives run faster. They don't. They just perceive them to because they've done "maintenance".
Click to expand...


The pics are not showing up.....
 
XTRanger said:
The pics are not showing up.....
Click to expand...

I just stuck with links, as some folks are saddled with not being able to get broadband and are stuck dealing with dial-up..

Like me, when I'm at home.

Weep for me. :(

If you CAN get broadband but stick with dial-up? Well then I hate you and you suck. :)

miniConvert said:
Wow, that's quite a result :) Thanks for doing that, yellow, I suspected it would be the case but it's nice to see it for sure.
Click to expand...

As did I, but I wasn't sure.

I'm also not sure how far I trust iDefrag.
And this method can be quite time consuming, as it would be a OrigClone->BackupClone->Orig.
 
XTRanger said:
Haha, im sorry folks, i guess this wasnt a good start for a n00b here... but i'll try my best to avoid dumba$$ questions like there from now on.

and i understand now- user initiated defrag is not an essential task in OSX, and the fact that my computer takes 45secs to go to sleep is not due to fragmentation.



now only if my computer could go to sleep under 10 seconds.... I guess i'll make a fool outta myself again by asking this question in a related thread.


thanks for all the clarification folks!
Click to expand...

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macosxhints/2006/10/sleepmode/index.php

this is how to make it sleep faster.

yours is on 3, the faster one is 0
 
how much fragmentation would actually occour on a drive?? i never thought it would be as high as 60%, especially if hfs+ does it automatically. i was thinking like a max of 10-15%, maybe 20%..
 
DoFoT9 said:
hmm id have to beg to differ. its just that the files are arranged in a slightly diff way. with cloning you are guaranteed to have everything cloned.(makes sense). defrag isnt 100% purem imho
Click to expand...

If by "cloning a disk" you are asking the OS for the files and copying them to a fresh disk, the fresh disk will be essentially a de-fragged version of the original[1].

If by "cloning a disk" you are asking the hardware for the sectors and data bits on them, you are really (forensically) cloning the disk and the exact same fragmentation will occur[2].

Without being in any way an expert (I hate fsck, mending a server with fsck asking you questions in hex isn't nice) isn't fragmentation dependant on filesystem rather than the hardware involved? I might be wrong on that through.

[1] Some fragmentation might occur during the write, but unlikely and has lots of "depends on" that I won't ever understand myself.
[2] As [1] plus the new hardware's sectors may well not match the old hardware's sectors due to breakage on either. Again, don't go there.
 
thefoo said:
If by "cloning a disk" you are asking the OS for the files and copying them to a fresh disk, the fresh disk will be essentially a de-fragged version of the original[1].

If by "cloning a disk" you are asking the hardware for the sectors and data bits on them, you are really (forensically) cloning the disk and the exact same fragmentation will occur[2].

Without being in any way an expert (I hate fsck, mending a server with fsck asking you questions in hex isn't nice) isn't fragmentation dependant on filesystem rather than the hardware involved? I might be wrong on that through.
Click to expand...

yea cloning like that, except without the OS running of course. lol uumm i have always been told that by cloning it will defrag everything itself.
i am also no expert on the subject, but i have a litle idea of it :cool: (burt)
 
miniConvert said:
And, lets face it, for the sake of 20 seconds (if you shut the lid to sleep even that isn't really applicable) you're safeguarding your data. So stick with the defaults unless you have a specific need.
Click to expand...

My only concern is that it might be a problem. if thats how long it usually takes to go to sleep, then I dont have any worries.

Would anyone be knowing what the usual time is for a MBP to go to sleep with hibernation mode 3? Thanks.
 
DoFoT9 said:
how much fragmentation would actually occour on a drive?? i never thought it would be as high as 60%, especially if hfs+ does it automatically. i was thinking like a max of 10-15%, maybe 20%..
Click to expand...

OS X only defrags small files.. 25MB and under.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back