UPDATED POLL: Do you believe defragmenting an NTFS volume produces a significant performance increase?

[AsianriceX]

Ok, I've searched hi and low for some definitive answer to this question, but I never really found a conclusion.

Some people think that it's completely essential to regularly defrag their hard drives in order to maintain performance.

Others thought it was essential, but now find themselves defragging less often as time passes, from weekly, to every month, to twice every two years, and eventually never.

Some people debate whether or not NTFS does a good enough job as it is keeping files contiguous and even if they weren't contiguous, there's no perceived performance drop.

And then there are those that believe the ritual of defragging the hard drive puts unneeded stress on the drive components, so defragging isn't worth it.


As for me, I think defragging is a worthless exercise in time wasting, but I have no hard proof, no real benchmarks.

What do you guys think?

Update: As per n0cmonkey's observation, I've edited the poll to have answers that make sense and changed the topic to accurately reflect the poll question.

For the old poll's sake, the results before deletion were:

Hell yes, I do it as often as I can. 7 votes 25.00 (%)
Yes, but I don't really do it on a regular basis. 11 votes 39.29 (%)
No, but I do it because I like watching the colored defragging graph change. 2 votes 7.14 (%)
Hell no, I wouldn't defrag if my life depended on it. 8 votes 28.57 (%)

 

[oznerol]

With Windows, I format before disc fragmentation ever becomes an issue.

 

[imported_rod]

Originally posted by: ducci
With Windows, I format before disc fragmentation ever becomes an issue.

LOL...but so true!


I think defragging is more important when the hard drive is fairly full.

I try to do it once a fortnight, but Im not stressed if I only do it once a month.

RoD

 

[danklumpp]

I think it's good to do it, you might not notice the difference, though. If you do it more often, it won't take as long each time.

 

[imported_ArtVandalay]

If it's been awhile since a defrag and the drive has gotten very fragmented, I'll notice a difference. As someone else said though, you usually end up reformatting before then anyway.

 

[gf4200isdabest]

People often fail to consider what type of fragmentation they have. If your HD is "50% fragmented" but that fragmentation occurs because of a couple dozen large files (movies, cd images, etc) then you may not notice a difference. However, if your hard drive is 25% fragmented because thousands of files on your disk are fragmented then I think you would notice a difference.

 

[gsellis]

Yep, it depends on what you are doing on what. I notice it IF my video editing drive is close to full and very fragmented, but only while editing.

It does not hurt anything to defrag it. In some cases, it is overrated (like Mom, who uses the web and has some small Word docs).

 

[shiranai]

I've heard that defragging too often will decrease the lifespan of the drive due to excess fatigue.

 

[Crism]

I've got 2x WD 80GB drives on a RAID 0 config. I'm also a heavy gamer with CounterStrike Source so I need my hard drives in tip-top shape. I usually defrag once a week to keep the performance at peek. Also, after I install a large program or put a 1GB CompactFlash full of pictures on my computer I defrag to get those files in order. I've got 3 hard drives in my system...the RAID then 1 additional 80GB for non-gaming storage. I used to back up this information to the RAID drives. However, now I just transfer it all across my network to my mother's computer. Reason for this being that my RAID became fairly full and slower as I put the 50GB of data on it. I noticed I wasn't getting the same FPS in games. So I deleted all 50GB of data, defragmented the hard drive, and I then noticed a performance boost in the games! So pretty much, filling up your hard drive will decrease performance . Remember to defrag boys and girls.

 

[Alex]

i dont ever notice any performance differences but my rig is fairly speedy anyway (athlon64 2800+ 1.8ghz, 1.5gb ram)

i defrag twice a month on avg or rather once every 3 weeks... its not a scheduled or even regular thing i just analyze the disk from time to time and if its fragmented i leave it overnight or when i go out... i would never sit around and not use the computer because "it just had to be defragmented"

 

[dullard]

Defragging has got to be the most overhyped computer thing ever. Anytime someone mentions a computer is broken (say the printer doesn't print), someone else chimes in, "Did you try defragging?". :roll:

I did many, many benchmarks on slow drives over the years. Defragging a typically fragmented drive can possibly add 1%-2% to the drive speed - enough to barely measure but not enough to notice. Defragging doesn't solve any computer problems. Defragging isn't a requirement. Defragging isn't a miracle cure.

With NTFS that 1-2% number plummets to unmeasurable differences. So basically, don't bother unless you have a highly irregular situation.

 

[Crism]

Originally posted by: dullard
Defragging has got to be the most overhyped computer thing ever. Anytime someone mentions a computer is broken (say the printer doesn't print), someone else chimes in, "Did you try defragging?". :roll:

No no no it's....."Is it plugged in?"

 

[AsianriceX]

Excellent! Let's get more replies going!

 

[NuroMancer]

Originally posted by: AsianriceX
Ok, I've searched hi and low for some definitive answer to this question, but I never really found a conclusion.

Some people think that it's completely essential to regularly defrag their hard drives in order to maintain performance.

Others thought it was essential, but now find themselves defragging less often as time passes, from weekly, to every month, to twice every two years, and eventually never.

Some people debate whether or not NTFS does a good enough job as it is keeping files contiguous and even if they weren't contiguous, there's no perceived performance drop.

And then there are those that believe the ritual of defragging the hard drive puts unneeded stress on the drive components, so defragging isn't worth it.


As for me, I think defragging is a worthless exercise in time wasting, but I have no hard proof, no real benchmarks.

What do you guys think?

Do you understand how a HDD works?

If so then you will realize that if the data on the platters is spread out, then it will effect preformance. On files like movies etc. This won't make a difference because the data is buffered. But on something like games, large video files, OS files etc, It can cause slower data reading simply because the drive has to move a longer distance back and forth to retrieve data.

 

[Bateluer]

I do notice a difference between a clean drive and a heavily fragmented drive. It does have to be pretty bad though to notice it. A few slivers of red in the defrag window won't be noticeable, but if the bar is mostly red, there is a problem.

With my XP Pro machines, I usually defrag about once per week, or after a major bout of software installation.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Wrong forum.

Your answers don't fit your poll. Whatever I believe may not be in any way related to what I do.

It doesn't provide a significant performance increase. On Windows systems, I do it occassionally.

 

[AsianriceX]

Originally posted by: NuroMancer

Originally posted by: AsianriceX
Ok, I've searched hi and low for some definitive answer to this question, but I never really found a conclusion.

Some people think that it's completely essential to regularly defrag their hard drives in order to maintain performance.

Others thought it was essential, but now find themselves defragging less often as time passes, from weekly, to every month, to twice every two years, and eventually never.

Some people debate whether or not NTFS does a good enough job as it is keeping files contiguous and even if they weren't contiguous, there's no perceived performance drop.

And then there are those that believe the ritual of defragging the hard drive puts unneeded stress on the drive components, so defragging isn't worth it.


As for me, I think defragging is a worthless exercise in time wasting, but I have no hard proof, no real benchmarks.

What do you guys think?

Do you understand how a HDD works?

If so then you will realize that if the data on the platters is spread out, then it will effect preformance. On files like movies etc. This won't make a difference because the data is buffered. But on something like games, large video files, OS files etc, It can cause slower data reading simply because the drive has to move a longer distance back and forth to retrieve data.

While I do agree that having data spread out across a platter may decrease performance, I question whether or not it makes a significant difference.

I would think worst case scenario is having data alternate between the inside track and outside track sequentially such that the head has to travel the maximum distance and the motor has to rotate the platter a full rotation...

But I think on an average case, the benefit would be insignificant.

 

[KoolDrew]

Your poll choices suckl and this is in the wrong forum.

 

[AsianriceX]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Your poll choices suckl and this is in the wrong forum.

Oh noes! I've changed them, I swear.

As for the forum issue... where would you have placed it?

 

[BOLt]

Originally posted by: AsianriceX

Originally posted by: NuroMancer

Originally posted by: AsianriceX
Ok, I've searched hi and low for some definitive answer to this question, but I never really found a conclusion.

Some people think that it's completely essential to regularly defrag their hard drives in order to maintain performance.

Others thought it was essential, but now find themselves defragging less often as time passes, from weekly, to every month, to twice every two years, and eventually never.

Some people debate whether or not NTFS does a good enough job as it is keeping files contiguous and even if they weren't contiguous, there's no perceived performance drop.

And then there are those that believe the ritual of defragging the hard drive puts unneeded stress on the drive components, so defragging isn't worth it.


As for me, I think defragging is a worthless exercise in time wasting, but I have no hard proof, no real benchmarks.

What do you guys think?

Do you understand how a HDD works?

If so then you will realize that if the data on the platters is spread out, then it will effect preformance. On files like movies etc. This won't make a difference because the data is buffered. But on something like games, large video files, OS files etc, It can cause slower data reading simply because the drive has to move a longer distance back and forth to retrieve data.

While I do agree that having data spread out across a platter may decrease performance, I question whether or not it makes a significant difference.

I would think worst case scenario is having data alternate between the inside track and outside track sequentially such that the head has to travel the maximum distance and the motor has to rotate the platter a full rotation...

But I think on an average case, the benefit would be insignificant.

[sarcasm]
Yeah, we're trying to analyze the quantitative performance difference between fragmented and non-fragmented hard drives (without any benchmarks, constant variables such as hard disk size, seek times, brands, rpms, fragmentation levels, or much of anything else). But subjective reasoning should certainly bring everything to light.
[/sarcasm]

Good luck!

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to include sarcasm indicators around 'Good luck!', but I'm sure the author and anyone entertaining this exercise in futility are astute enough to be able to perceive that.

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: AsianriceX

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Your poll choices suckl and this is in the wrong forum.

Oh noes! I've changed them, I swear.

As for the forum issue... where would you have placed it?

OS

 

[BOLt]

Originally posted by: BOLt

Originally posted by: AsianriceX

Originally posted by: NuroMancer

Originally posted by: AsianriceX
Ok, I've searched hi and low for some definitive answer to this question, but I never really found a conclusion.

Some people think that it's completely essential to regularly defrag their hard drives in order to maintain performance.

Others thought it was essential, but now find themselves defragging less often as time passes, from weekly, to every month, to twice every two years, and eventually never.

Some people debate whether or not NTFS does a good enough job as it is keeping files contiguous and even if they weren't contiguous, there's no perceived performance drop.

And then there are those that believe the ritual of defragging the hard drive puts unneeded stress on the drive components, so defragging isn't worth it.


As for me, I think defragging is a worthless exercise in time wasting, but I have no hard proof, no real benchmarks.

What do you guys think?

Do you understand how a HDD works?

If so then you will realize that if the data on the platters is spread out, then it will effect preformance. On files like movies etc. This won't make a difference because the data is buffered. But on something like games, large video files, OS files etc, It can cause slower data reading simply because the drive has to move a longer distance back and forth to retrieve data.

While I do agree that having data spread out across a platter may decrease performance, I question whether or not it makes a significant difference.

I would think worst case scenario is having data alternate between the inside track and outside track sequentially such that the head has to travel the maximum distance and the motor has to rotate the platter a full rotation...

But I think on an average case, the benefit would be insignificant.

[sarcasm]
Yeah, AsianriceX, the purpose of this thread is to analyze the quantitative performance difference between fragmented and non-fragmented hard drives (without any benchmarks, constant variables such as hard disk size, seek times, brands, rpms, fragmentation levels, or much of anything else). The facts of how hard drives work should be disregarded for the sake of attempting to measure the performance difference between different (arbitrary) states of disk fragmentation. Only subjective reasoning will bring the answers they to light.
[/sarcasm]

Good luck!

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to include sarcasm indicators around 'Good luck!', but I'm sure the author and anyone entertaining this exercise in futility are astute enough to be able to perceive that.

 

[AsianriceX]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: AsianriceX

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Your poll choices suckl and this is in the wrong forum.

Oh noes! I've changed them, I swear.

As for the forum issue... where would you have placed it?

OS

While this issue can be related to the NT family of Windows operating systems due to the question asking about NTFS volumes, I didn't reason that my question would be better suited in Operating Systems. I thought that this question dealt more with physical aspects of data being arranged on a hard drive platter and the perceived performance benefit of having the data arranged more efficiently. I may have been wrong with selecting a certain group of OSes by specifying NTFS, but in my shortsightedness, I chose NTFS since that's what I use and what most NT workstations use nowadays.

Oh, you could also contribute to the thread. Otherwise I've addressed your comments, so please move along.

 

[AsianriceX]

Originally posted by: BOLt

[sarcasm]
Yeah, AsianriceX, the purpose of this thread is to analyze the quantitative performance difference between fragmented and non-fragmented hard drives (without any benchmarks, constant variables such as hard disk size, seek times, brands, rpms, fragmentation levels, or much of anything else). The facts of how hard drives work should be disregarded for the sake of attempting to measure the performance difference between different (arbitrary) states of disk fragmentation. Only subjective reasoning will bring the answers they to light.
[/sarcasm]

Good luck!

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to include sarcasm indicators around 'Good luck!', but I'm sure the author and anyone entertaining this exercise in futility are astute enough to be able to perceive that.

I appreciate your comments on the futility of this question. I realize that a quantitative analysis of this topic would be better suited, but as you can see by the lack of published studies, this is a very hard topic to analyze. If you want to go through the paces of creating multiple images of arbitrary defragmentation, ghosting them to many different drives varying by size, platter density, rotation speed, seek times and the such, and going through multiple different benchmarks on disk performance, be my guest. You'll be a hero for finally putting this subject to rest.

As for me, I prefer lying to myself and using anecdotal evidence to support my claims. It's either that or I'm just curious to see what others think.

I prefer the bandwagon; if others are doing it or thinking it, so will I!

 

[KoolDrew]

Windows does not read files from one end to another making fragmenting pretty useless except for cases when there is extreme fragmentation.