Welcome to Vista Banter. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
Performance and Maintainance of Windows Vista A forum for performance and maintenance tasks in Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.performance_maintainance) |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
Why a dumbed down version of defrag ?
The problem is that it's very difficult to judge progress. I'm pasting the
answer from our FAQ (http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/440717.aspx) below: Why was the defrag progress indicator removed? Part of the problem with the Windows XP defrag tool was that percent complete was not accurate or meaningful. Depending on the phase of defrag, 1% of progress could take from several seconds to minutes, which made the progress indicator highly unreliable. The difficulty here is that since defrag is a multi-pass process (multiple iterations of file defragmentation and free space consolidation) there is no way to accurately predict when defrag will complete since the number of loop iterations and how long each takes are highly dependent on the layout of the files on the volume, the level of file and free space fragmentation, and the other system activity. While I agree that having no progress is bad, misleading progress I believe is worse. Also, the idea behind the new automated defrag is that users will not have to think about it not worry about the progress it is making. With defrag running regularly, the system will be close to optimal levels of fragmentation, and subsequent defrag runs should not take long. -- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Want to learn more about Windows Server file and storage technologies? Visit our team blog at http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/default.aspx. "Robert Moir" wrote in message ... Jeff wrote: Jill, Sorry bout the last post;I posted it before your response. But; still stand on the issue. LOTS of people do want the UI. Personally I use command line if I feel I want to override auto defrag;but then again;people like to see pretty colors. I think some kind of progress bar / percentage counter would be very important, but as for the pretty colours, if you want to see a pretty picture on your screen that has little to no relation with what is actually happening while your computer is defragging, why not just watch a DVD? |
|
|||
Why a dumbed down version of defrag ?
Jill Zoeller [MSFT] wrote:
The problem is that it's very difficult to judge progress. I'm pasting the answer from our FAQ (http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/440717.aspx) below: Yep, I've seen the FAQ. I agree with the "While I agree that having no progress is bad, misleading progress I believe is worse." comment totally. I still lament the absence of a progress bar, even though I understand that it was forced upon you rather than something that you 'just left out'. -- Robert Moir www.robertmoir.com |
|
|||
Why a dumbed down version of defrag ?
Thank you for the information. I have been letting Vista's defrag run for
hours and I went back to XP and run my Diskeeper Pro and my system seems to fly. I was afraid to run defrag from XP until I read the blog. -- Sam "Jill Zoeller [MSFT]" wrote: If you want a little background on the design decisions made for Vista's defrag, see our blog at https://blogs.technet.com/filecab/ar...r/default.aspx. You might find the FAQ useful, as well as the recent chat transcript. -- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Want to learn more about Windows Server file and storage technologies? Visit our team blog at http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/default.aspx. "James" wrote in message ... Hello people, any one know the reason why microsoft had dumbed down DEFRAG ?? |
|
|||
Why a dumbed down version of defrag ?
First, thank you so much for participating in this newsgroup. Whether we
agree with every design decision in Vista or not --- and that would be an impossible goal --- it's a pleasure to hear them explained lucidly. A question and a couple of comments: (1) The default disk defrag schedule in task manager uses an -I switch which is not documented when you run defrag -?. I am guessing it means "(I)dle" mode -- I.e. don't run unless computer is idling or give back as much CPU as possible. ????? (2) The comments: I liked being fooled by the old progress indicator (lol) or at least seeing a map of defrag running. We all KNEW the estimates were hopeless! But, it was comforting to watch the fragments move around -- well, mesmerizing maybe. Maybe for Service Pack 2 (whenever) you can add back some kind of visual interface for those of us who want to see it. Download Auslogic's disk defragger (free -- I'm sure MSFT could get it for a song! ) On top of the MS defrag engine, that would be fine. (3) For all those who have been complaining, run DEFRAG with the -w switch, go get a cup of Starbucks (you'll have plenty of time), and then, when it's done, run Auslogic's or some other defragger that is Vista compatible and has a visual disk map. You'll be quite surprised and pleased at what a good job MS DEFRAG did. Thanks again! "Jill Zoeller [MSFT]" wrote in message ... The problem is that it's very difficult to judge progress. I'm pasting the answer from our FAQ (http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/440717.aspx) below: |
|
|||
Why a dumbed down version of defrag ?
Hi Robert,
These are some good questions. Here is some more information. 1) You are correct. The -i option means that unless the machine is idle defrag.exe will pause. If the machine is idle (no interactive user input) for a few minutes defrag will continue. The option is not documented since it was added late in the Vista development cycle when resource changes were not possible (otherwise localization will be delayed). The option will be documented in a KB article once Vista is released. On a similar note, the scheduled defrag task is configured to only start when the machine is idle. 2) We have heard the feedback on defragmentation progress and are considering what we can do to provide *reliable* progress indication in a future version of windows. I believe you have all read my response on the FAQ that Jill referenced below and understand why the progress was taken out so I'm not going to rehash it here. 3) Although it is documented, I thought I'd use this post to clarify the meaning of the -w option. Without the -w option defrag will perform partial defragmentation which means that it will only try to coalesce file fragments smaller that 64MB. Further coalescing these extents is expensive both in terms of defragmentation time and free space requirements while the performance benefit is small. At 64 MB, the additional seek time associated with reading 2 disjoint fragments of this size, is negligible compared to the rotational latency to actually read the contiguous portions of the extents. The -w option allows you to bypass the partial defragmentation behavior and try to defragment all extents regardless of size. Once again, thank you for participating in the Windows Vista Beta program. Georgi Matev [MSFT] PM Core File Solutions This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. "Robert Blacher @hotmail.com" rblacherremove spam blocker wrote in message ... First, thank you so much for participating in this newsgroup. Whether we agree with every design decision in Vista or not --- and that would be an impossible goal --- it's a pleasure to hear them explained lucidly. A question and a couple of comments: (1) The default disk defrag schedule in task manager uses an -I switch which is not documented when you run defrag -?. I am guessing it means "(I)dle" mode -- I.e. don't run unless computer is idling or give back as much CPU as possible. ????? (2) The comments: I liked being fooled by the old progress indicator (lol) or at least seeing a map of defrag running. We all KNEW the estimates were hopeless! But, it was comforting to watch the fragments move around -- well, mesmerizing maybe. Maybe for Service Pack 2 (whenever) you can add back some kind of visual interface for those of us who want to see it. Download Auslogic's disk defragger (free -- I'm sure MSFT could get it for a song! ) On top of the MS defrag engine, that would be fine. (3) For all those who have been complaining, run DEFRAG with the -w switch, go get a cup of Starbucks (you'll have plenty of time), and then, when it's done, run Auslogic's or some other defragger that is Vista compatible and has a visual disk map. You'll be quite surprised and pleased at what a good job MS DEFRAG did. Thanks again! "Jill Zoeller [MSFT]" wrote in message ... The problem is that it's very difficult to judge progress. I'm pasting the answer from our FAQ (http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/440717.aspx) below: |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|