Proof that We Really Do Need to Defragment

[bousozoku]

Yeah, I think this is the key. It definitely isn't useless, but does not need to have as much focus as it does in the Windows world, where it's just one of those standard maintenance tasks no one even thinks twice about, just like Scandisk.

Well, Disk First Aid used to run on boot on Mac OS 9, if you checked the preference and fsck runs every time you boot Mac OS X.

The people who designed the Hierarchial File System were quite smart to use the method they did to store files, even though it wasn't all that fast. It's been through very few changes since 1985 and is still quite resistant to fragmentation.

 

[JFreak]

-Tech Tools can be found at: www.micromat.com
-Drice Genius can be found here.

These programs do have demo modes.

I think one of my laptops' hard drive has bad sector(s). Can either of these programs identify those sectors and mark them un-usable?

 

[Bulb]

OS X does have a repair utility.


Edit: Read through the thread

Well then i fail to understand why scan disk was getting critised to begin with ?? The original point suggested Windows is somehow inferior because of scan disk, so if Mac has the same thing just under another name then whats the difference ?? More gloating with no substance.

 

[JFreak]

whats the difference ??

windows systems run scandisk after when there was a failure. osx does it on the fly so there wouldn't be a failure. what's the difference?

 

[~Shard~]

Well, Disk First Aid used to run on boot on Mac OS 9, if you checked the preference and fsck runs every time you boot Mac OS X.

That's true, good point. I never actually ever ran a System 9 machine, but you're right about fsck with OS X.

The people who designed the Hierarchial File System were quite smart to use the method they did to store files, even though it wasn't all that fast. It's been through very few changes since 1985 and is still quite resistant to fragmentation.

Quite the testament, really - how many other systems like it have been around in its original format (give or take) for 20 years? It's definitely a solid system - again, one of the reasons why the need to defrag it is minimal.

 

[FocusAndEarnIt]

My point here is that if it is necessary to do so, then by default there will one in OSX.

Maybe in Leopard

 

[Sdashiki]

How about something less risky, albeit more time consuming. Do a complete reinstall once a year and you'll be just as happy as if you took the risk of using a piece of software that does something that may not even be necessary.

Whether or not defragmenting your Mac is necessary is one point I guess, but my main concern with all this is the crappy software out there that claims to do it efficiently and effectively without any underlying effects to your overall system.

DUH, i dont think anyone on here should defrag unless you have no way to back up. I am not against defraggin at all, by all means do it. But if you can backup your stuff, the best and easiest and CLEANEST way to defrag, just reformat every so often. More often if you read/write to the drive alot (video editing, bit torrent etc).

valid points in this thread but all are a bit too "personal preferenced" for my tastes.

No, you dont HAVE to defrag. But its a good idea to get all your ducks in a row.

 

[cc bcc]

After defragging you'll see a temporary increase in boot times, because OS X uses hot file clustering to move small files (<10MB, 5000 files max, 0.5% of diskspace max) to the beginning of the disk (small files are slow because seek times take up more time relatively), and the defrag app probably moved them around. OS X will start evaluating them again, which will take time. But at the end you'll get a faster machine.

 

[Will Cheyney]

Nothing beats a routine backup and re-intialise.

 

[XNine]

I defrag every six months or so. Tech Tool Pro 4 and DiskWarrior are your best bets. Everything else is sketchy, and I wouldn't trust it.

TTP4 takes a while, but is thorough, Disk Warrior is quicker, and catches some things TTP4 does not, but lso misses some things.

 

[Bulb]

windows systems run scandisk after when there was a failure. osx does it on the fly so there wouldn't be a failure. what's the difference?

The times when a scan on the fly is relevant is for an imminent physical hardware failure where you have increasing bad sectors and your disk is dying, but that happens exact same on windows if your drive is about to fail.. That concept however doesnt make sense for something like a power outage, you cannot detect that on the fly.

People are moaning about scan disk cause it would happen after an OS crash and in the days of win 98 that was far too common but those days are long gone. XP is far more stable. It makes me wonder how many people who complain about windows have actually seen XP running on a decent spec system without a million useless shareware programs all over the place. Believe it or not it can actually be very fast and smooth. Work computers running a P2 with minimal ram and too much software all over them are bound to be a disaster.

 

[JFreak]

Believe it or not it can actually be very fast and smooth.

Trust me, I know what's the Windows world like.

At work (few hundred windows users, one mac user) I have this XP box which I have loaded with 2GB memory. Perhaps it would be fine if I rebooted it every day, or even every now and then, but I cannot justify doing that as due to my workflow there are a lot of things open at all times and a reboot costs me at least an hour of wasted time. Ideally I would never reboot, but every two or three weeks I just have to -- in time the system becomes so unstable that it almost feels like throwing a kernel panic when I press the "start" button. So much for smoothness at the point where task manager reports kernel size of +100 megabytes.

I used to like the speed and smoothness of NT4, which had very little memory leaks and if I remember correctly, the kernel memory footprint was only about ten(ish) megabytes. It ran like a charm even with 64 megabytes memory. The Best Windows Ever. Very little of that speed and smoothness has made it into the XP, even if XP is ran with modern box that has 32 times more memory than a basic well-running NT4 box seven years ago. It's so sad...

 

[Bulb]

I cant imagine how a reboot would take an hour of work time ?? And 1 reboot every few weeks, surely that isnt bad ?

My comment isnt to say that all windows machines are great, i couldnt possibly argue that point.. I was stating that they can be good if they are tuned well. As i say, you run loads of useless junk on them and its bound to hound performance, but a streamlined system run well and offer a lot of diversity.

I agree NT was a lot better at handling resources but it was far less stable with hardware interaction and it couldnt run games or any of these other things that XP does well. It may have suited your situation better but across the board it was far more limited than XP.

 

[steelfist]

i'm not defragging my harddrive...i don't want to risk making my computer slower.

for the pc, it's hella good for it, but there seems to be some doubt whether it's good or not

 

[JFreak]

I cant imagine how a reboot would take an hour of work time ?? And 1 reboot every few weeks, surely that isnt bad ?

You don't do real work, do you? You cannot just boot up a Windows and expect to be able to begin working right away, unless your work description is to play minesweeper 'till you go crazy. My workflow requires a dozen or so apps and few dozen network connections open at all times. IT really takes an hour to open up the workspace, believe it or not. And that's why I have a God-given right to get angry at Windows' instability.

I was stating that they can be good if they are tuned well. As i say, you run loads of useless junk on them and its bound to hound performance, but a streamlined system run well and offer a lot of diversity.

In other words, you're actually saying that a streamlined Windows system is such a box that doesn't have anything installed and anything running - only Windows itself. You just don't benefit from such stability that is not put into real work! Whatever is installed in my work XP box are 100% necessities and all performance hogging is called "work".

I agree NT was a lot better at handling resources but it was far less stable with hardware interaction and it couldnt run games or any of these other things that XP does well. It may have suited your situation better but across the board it was far more limited than XP.

Exactly my point. Once you configured your workstation, the NT4 was fast and stable as long as you used good drivers for your hardware. Not everything was supported, but all supported hardware ran perfectly. Compared to NT4, these current Windows systems are TOYS that have been optimised to play games - close to useless as real world workstations.

 

[Counterfit]

I think one of my laptops' hard drive has bad sector(s). Can either of these programs identify those sectors and mark them un-usable?

TechTool Pro can do lots of things, including map out bad sectors.

 

[Bulb]

You don't do real work, do you? You cannot just boot up a Windows and expect to be able to begin working right away, unless your work description is to play minesweeper 'till you go crazy. My workflow requires a dozen or so apps and few dozen network connections open at all times. IT really takes an hour to open up the workspace, believe it or not. And that's why I have a God-given right to get angry at Windows' instability.



In other words, you're actually saying that a streamlined Windows system is such a box that doesn't have anything installed and anything running - only Windows itself. You just don't benefit from such stability that is not put into real work! Whatever is installed in my work XP box are 100% necessities and all performance hogging is called "work".



Exactly my point. Once you configured your workstation, the NT4 was fast and stable as long as you used good drivers for your hardware. Not everything was supported, but all supported hardware ran perfectly. Compared to NT4, these current Windows systems are TOYS that have been optimised to play games - close to useless as real world workstations.

Thanks.. Yes i do real work, I run an audio recording studio and i have 6 machines here. I am up and running within 15 min max.

I am not interested in debating ego driven rhetoric with you, fact is i have many examples of windows boxes that run smooth as a whistle, its on the back of good hardware components and well written up to date software. My reference to shareware on windows was a statement to indicate it is often badly written and therefore creates problems with things like memory leaks and this is when a reboot becomes necessary.

But that doesnt mean your "necessities" arent in the same category. Im not sure what you run or how robust and well written it is. Either way its ridiculous it takes you an hour to boot up, and unfortunate it makes you so angry.