Microsoft Windows Vista Community Forums - Vistaheads
Recommended Download



Welcome to the Microsoft Windows Vista Community Forums - Vistaheads, YOUR Largest Resource for Windows Vista related information.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so , join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Driver Scanner

Running disk defragmenter again still takes long

microsoft.public.windows.vista.performance maintenance






Speedup My PC
Reply
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2007
Mickey Segal
 

Posts: n/a
Running disk defragmenter again still takes long
I ran Disk Defragmenter earlier today and it took 7 hours (on a 2.66 GHz
computer with a 80 GB hard drive). I re-booted and ran it again, and it has
been running for an hour. On Windows XP, Disk Defragmenter would run for
very little time on the second run with the same computer. Is some extra
service being provided here, such as moving around files to keep the bits
from decaying? Or is it just inefficient?

I agree with others that not having displays of progress is a bother - if
some people found the display burdensome it could be off by default.


Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2007
Victoria House [MSFT]
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Running disk defragmenter again still takes long
The number of file extents (that is the number of files + extra extents, see
defrag /v) will affect how much time your defrag takes.
Also the number of free space extents and the size of each will affect
defrag time.
Lastly, Defrag runs at low priority, so if you are doing something else on
the computer defrag will yield to whatever else is happening.

The 80GB hard drive size is not the most important

For more info see
http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/arc...r/default.aspx
and our faq.

-Victoria


"Mickey Segal" <not_monitored@example.com> wrote in message
news:O5wXa8wRHHA.3996@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I ran Disk Defragmenter earlier today and it took 7 hours (on a 2.66 GHz
>computer with a 80 GB hard drive). I re-booted and ran it again, and it
>has been running for an hour. On Windows XP, Disk Defragmenter would run
>for very little time on the second run with the same computer. Is some
>extra service being provided here, such as moving around files to keep the
>bits from decaying? Or is it just inefficient?
>
> I agree with others that not having displays of progress is a bother - if
> some people found the display burdensome it could be off by default.
>


Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2007
Mickey Segal
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Running disk defragmenter again still takes long
No one was using the computer, but I don't know whether some other service
was running such as file indexing. During the same day the amount of free
space reported dropped and then increased by 7 GB, and the System Volume
Information folder changed from reporting 20 GB to reporting empty.

"Victoria House [MSFT]" <vhouse@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2DDF7403-7DE7-4AB8-9940-5ECA8900652B@microsoft.com...
> The number of file extents (that is the number of files + extra extents,
> see defrag /v) will affect how much time your defrag takes.
> Also the number of free space extents and the size of each will affect
> defrag time.
> Lastly, Defrag runs at low priority, so if you are doing something else on
> the computer defrag will yield to whatever else is happening.
>
> The 80GB hard drive size is not the most important
>
> For more info see
> http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/arc...r/default.aspx
> and our faq.



Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2007
Robert Moir
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Running disk defragmenter again still takes long
Mickey Segal wrote:

> I agree with others that not having displays of progress is a bother
> - if some people found the display burdensome it could be off by
> default.


It's frustrating but apparently the progress indicator that was shown in
older versions of Windows was actually lying to us anyway. And it's worth
remembering that Windows users are the only group of operating system
consumers that obsess over watching their disks defragment, which says
something about either us, the OS or both, and I suspect what it says is
nothing good.

I know it's hard to break old habits but if you want to watch an animation
that has nothing to do with what is actually taking place on your disk
during the defragger's run, I personally suggest old futurama or simpsons
cartoons.

--
Robert Moir
http://www.rhymeswithgeek.com


Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 04-10-2007
=?Utf-8?B?amVyaHluZWFyc29u?=
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Running disk defragmenter again still takes long


"Victoria House [MSFT]" wrote:

> The number of file extents (that is the number of files + extra extents, see
> defrag /v) will affect how much time your defrag takes.
> Also the number of free space extents and the size of each will affect
> defrag time.
> Lastly, Defrag runs at low priority, so if you are doing something else on
> the computer defrag will yield to whatever else is happening.
>
> The 80GB hard drive size is not the most important
>
> For more info see
> http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/arc...r/default.aspx
> and our faq.
>
> -Victoria
>
>
> "Mickey Segal" <not_monitored@example.com> wrote in message
> news:O5wXa8wRHHA.3996@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >I ran Disk Defragmenter earlier today and it took 7 hours (on a 2.66 GHz
> >computer with a 80 GB hard drive). I re-booted and ran it again, and it
> >has been running for an hour. On Windows XP, Disk Defragmenter would run
> >for very little time on the second run with the same computer. Is some
> >extra service being provided here, such as moving around files to keep the
> >bits from decaying? Or is it just inefficient?
> >
> > I agree with others that not having displays of progress is a bother - if
> > some people found the display burdensome it could be off by default.
> >

>

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vista takes a long time from start to long in on SBS2003 network...... mlai microsoft.public.windows.vista.networking sharing 9 12-04-2007 09:10
Windows Vista Ultimate takes long time to boot. =?Utf-8?B?TWVkaGF0?= microsoft.public.windows.vista.performance maintenance 20 02-08-2007 11:07
Windows Disk Defrag not workig =?Utf-8?B?dGRhd2c=?= microsoft.public.windows.vista.performance maintenance 15 01-30-2007 01:15




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:02.




Driver Scanner - Free Scan Now

Vistaheads.com is part of the Heads Network. See also XPHeads.com , Win7Heads.com and Win8Heads.com.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin for phpBBStyles.com.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120