Gerry Cornell
May 6th 04, 12:28 AM
A phenomenon I have observed in Windows XP is that when I compact in =
Outlook Express before running Disk Defragmenter then file fragmentation =
is less when Disk Defragmenter analyses the disk.
~~~~~~
Hope this helps.
Gerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA
Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please tell the newsgroup how any=20
suggested solution worked for you.
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"andrea catto'" > wrote in message =
...
> Guys...
>=20
> I know for a fact if you want to write sector by sector from the =
beginning
> to end of an hard drive, it may be very fast.
>=20
> Defrag is very slow indeed.
>=20
> I am wondering if there is some optimization that can be made to the =
defrag
> so that data is pre-prepared in memory (just the meta data of course), =
and
> once those pointers are ready, a major one-time-only set of writes =
occurs.
>=20
> the problem I think with the slowness of defrag is that it moves =
blocks back
> and forth.
>=20
> I know I know, defrag must keep the disk consistent so it can not do a =
one
> time operation otherwise a power failure may screw it all up....
>=20
> but what do you think ?
>=20
>
Outlook Express before running Disk Defragmenter then file fragmentation =
is less when Disk Defragmenter analyses the disk.
~~~~~~
Hope this helps.
Gerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA
Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please tell the newsgroup how any=20
suggested solution worked for you.
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"andrea catto'" > wrote in message =
...
> Guys...
>=20
> I know for a fact if you want to write sector by sector from the =
beginning
> to end of an hard drive, it may be very fast.
>=20
> Defrag is very slow indeed.
>=20
> I am wondering if there is some optimization that can be made to the =
defrag
> so that data is pre-prepared in memory (just the meta data of course), =
and
> once those pointers are ready, a major one-time-only set of writes =
occurs.
>=20
> the problem I think with the slowness of defrag is that it moves =
blocks back
> and forth.
>=20
> I know I know, defrag must keep the disk consistent so it can not do a =
one
> time operation otherwise a power failure may screw it all up....
>=20
> but what do you think ?
>=20
>