of course we all know that. but the benefit of it is far less than when drives were spining at only 3000rpm. with the newer 5400 and 7200rpm the benefit is nearly nil. also if you're running ntfs, it's even less then that.

NVS is trying to make a case for what he said and using the def. of defragging to make what he "suggested" valid. it's very obvious to many of us here that it is not.

 

thanks for the page defrag dude :thumbup:

this makes more sense

 

It's not as much about RPM as the way the sectors are laid out on current drives.

In the early days, every sector took up the same angular space on a disk. That meant that inner sectors were small, and outer sectors were larger. Zone Bit Recording put more sectors at the outer portions of the disk, where there was more space per track. To do this, the drive electronics fools the computer into thinking that it has the same number of sectors per track. So the computer can think it's putting a file on contiguous sectors, while the drive is putting them in different places. Sector sparing automatically replaces bad sectors with good ones from spare cylinders, further reducing your chances of getting true defragmentation.

As drive capacity grew beyond the limitations of the original PC BIOS specification, a technique called "logical block addressing" was invented to essentially do away with the cylinder-head-sector addressing that was done in the past. With LBA you essentially have a bunch of sequentially numbered allocation units, which is what the computer sees. Physically, on the disk itself, two consecutively numbered sectors aren't necessarily next to each other on the platter. LBA still uses CHS for the sake of compatibility, but the logical CHS structure (what the computer sees) is nothing like the real structure on the disk.

The result of all of the above is that defragmentation has become a lot less effective. Modern drives and operating systems use caches to buffer disk reads and writes, making defragmentation less of a performance factor.

P.S. Glad you like PageDefrag. I use it wherever I can.

 

Yeah I agree. but with the "faster" rotational speeds the sectors being separted decreases the peroformance less than with the slower rotational speeds. which is one factor.

but you're absolutely correct.

I remember when I used norton to defrag my 300mb hard drive every other week :chuckles: on my Pentium 133MHz.

 

 

bunch of stuff under user name system and local service, and severl under your current user name. about 2 dozen for me but i load bunch of stuff so it's more than usual. total usuage is about 150mb for me.