I used Notron Speed Disk once a month while I was in OS 9. Now, I''m wondering if that's the best thing to do with an OS X system. Should I shell out for the OS X-compatible Norton Utilites or can I get a freeware defragmneter?
<strong>I used Notron Speed Disk once a month while I was in OS 9. Now, I''m wondering if that's the best thing to do with an OS X system. Should I shell out for the OS X-compatible Norton Utilites or can I get a freeware defragmneter?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd shell out for Diskwarrior, personally. It's a kick ass tool.
<strong>DiskWarrior optimizes directories, not the whole drive. I dunno whether it works for OS X as well as 9.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When you order the DiskWarrior CD, you also get PlusOptimizer, which defrags and optimizes files. Both work well on all disks (9 or X, but not UFS) when booted from the CD (9.x). The OS X native version is expected in Feb.
Hmm. So directories aren't different from OS 9 to X? Surprising.
So can I run Norton Utilities from disk as well? I won't be running the latest version though.... I think I'll install it on my Pismo, upgrade, then run Speed Disk on my FireWire targeted iMac HD.
I've never tried Plus Optimizer. does it make a graphical representation of your HD like Speed Disk does? I'll haveto try it.
Why do you need to defrag X? I believe that that is unneccessary. Unxi files never move, there isn't reshuffling so I don't think you need to worry about defragging X ever again.
<strong>Hmm. So directories aren't different from OS 9 to X? Surprising.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nah. They're both the same format (HFS+) so they both have the same file layout and formats. Norton should work fine (depending on what version it is, of course.) I think 4 or later will work, but I haven't tried it myself. In any case, make a backup before trying it.
<strong>Why do you need to defrag X? I believe that that is unneccessary. Unxi files never move, there isn't reshuffling so I don't think you need to worry about defragging X ever again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Eeeh, i didn't realize that there wasn't need to delete or create new files under Unix. I'll stop doing it right away!
<strong>Why do you need to defrag X? I believe that that is unneccessary. Unxi files never move, there isn't reshuffling so I don't think you need to worry about defragging X ever again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? I looked at the Speed Disk graphical representation of my HD on OS X and t was most certainly fragmented.
Really? I looked at the Speed Disk graphical representation of my HD on OS X and t was most certainly fragmented.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that's what all the techie people were saying when people whined that Drive 10 didn't defrag. Quite a few people said X wouldn't defrag at least no where near the level that pre-X or 9 and under did because of the unix file stuctures.
What in the "unix file structure" makes it not easily fragmented?
i know that the various file systems makes fragmentation occur less (such as freebsd's fs, which i forget it's name right now) but since it still uses HFS+, i don't see how that would help.
Anyhow, i was just wondering what people thought (or why HFS+ didn't need to be defragmented)
[quote]Why do you need to defrag X? I believe that that is unneccessary. Unxi files never move, there isn't reshuffling so I don't think you need to worry about defragging X ever again. <hr></blockquote>
Really, KidRed? I've read stories of how the swap file (if not on a dedicated partition) can hack your HD to pieces. Also, I've run Norton Speed Disk a number of times on my X partition. It's fragged, so I fix it. Some months later, fragged again. So I fix it (fragged-- not unoptimized). How did that happen if things never get fragged? I have a fragged Help App that won't even launch because it's so damnaged-- Norton and even ResEdit can't fix it. I never used the dang thing up to the time I realized it was broken. How might it have gotten damaged?
Really, KidRed? I've read stories of how the swap file (if not on a dedicated partition) can hack your HD to pieces. Also, I've run Norton Speed Disk a number of times on my X partition. It's fragged, so I fix it. Some months later, fragged again. So I fix it (fragged-- not unoptimized). How did that happen if things never get fragged? I have a fragged Help App that won't even launch because it's so damnaged-- Norton and even ResEdit can't fix it. I never used the dang thing up to the time I realized it was broken. How might it have gotten damaged?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah gee, I'm not sure smart ass, let's see, maybe because you ran NU on it? I've read where that has killed some drives before. Read my ****ing post again, I am going by what I read and relaying that info. I never claimed that X doesn't get defragged, just that I read that X doesn't get fragged the same way previous OS's did.
[quote] Just a guess but when you defrag you may get rid of the optimizations done by installers(I.E. prebinding). <hr></blockquote>
[quote]Unfortunately, none of the profiles currently shipped with Norton work very well with OSX. They won't break the disk, of course, but they'll slow things down. Someone apparently made a very good one several months ago, but I don't know where to find it now. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] Two questions:
1) Why do you feel the need to defrag your hard drive when you don't even know how OSX prebinding works?
2) Why do you need to make a boot disk? If you had a retail version of Diskwarrior or Norton you would not have to make one.
Mac's are simple as hell to defrag. Things get complicated when you don't know how OSX works and when you use pirated software.
You do not need to defrag your drive for OSX. I would love to know why you feel the need to. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] When you install an OSX update it prebinds so without getting fancy is is pretty much doing the same thing as diskwarrior.
Apple does not say that optimizing your drive is necessary, the only native OSX disk utility "Drive X" does not have an optimizer. And even when people still optimize things get SLOWER. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] Ok- good! This above and Mal's post clear this up for me. It seems obvious that defragging will undo the prebinding (assuming that "location" means physical location on the drive...) <hr></blockquote>
[quote]If you run your disk with any modern filesystem and a great deal of free space, you may find that you never have to worry about defragmenting. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] - I'm sure that some people go overboard with their use of disk utilities, but that isn't to say they don't have their place. Actual defragging probably won't affect drive performance unless the disk is severely fragmented (which, unfortunately, isn't uncommon running OS X with minimal memory and no dedicated swap partition); however, defragging any disk carries with it the risk of badly messing said disk up. Doesn't happen often. But it does happen. <hr></blockquote>
Keep in mind that files are placed where they are on disk only when they are written out. If the OS writes out an 80mb swap file, which never gets bigger or smaller, it will *never* get any more fragmented than it was when it was initially created.
The best thing to do, then, is just to leave your swap files alone. Your swap files created when your install is new will likely be entirely contiguous -- and nothing will change that unless the files are deleted, and the OS needs to recreate them later when your file system is a tad more fragmented.
Honestly, the best thing you can do is let the OS create its swap files, and the leave 'em alone. They won't become fragemented over time -- when a file is created, it "locks in" its place on the disk drive, and unless the file is made larger, it will never become any more fragmented than it initially was.
This is one reason why Mac OS X uses fixed-sized swap files -- I also wouldn't be too surprised if it tried *really* hard to create swap files on a contiguous area of the disk when they *do* need to be created.
The best thing you can do to speed up Mac OS X is bitchin' to Apple to get on the stick and speed it up and/or purchase new hardware (which are slightly conflicting goals for Apple ). Sure, defragging might help a little bit, and it is nice to feel empowered, but the difference shouldn't be all that huge for most things.
If your computer is *really* thrashing VM so much that fragmentation makes a difference, you'd be a lot better off grabbing another 512mb of RAM for $50 or so ( <a href="http://www.ramjet.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.ramjet.com/</a>; ) than defragging your hard drive constantly. <hr></blockquote>
What you are saying about his swap file is true however, from what I've read that no fragmentation thing in unix only works if you are using UFS. If you are using HFS+ it fragments just the same because it's the same file system. Maybe someone who's more knowlegable could chime in here ( like Applenut ). I could be mistaken but I believe that's what I've read on the subject.
As far Norton Speed Disk I've always used it. When I first installed OS X Norton showed severe fragmentation and you could see it in the pattern window. When I optimized OS X got faster not slower. I generally use it once a month ( booting from the CD in X ) depending on how much stuff I've thrown away or added.
Can you use this too much? Yes most definitely. You can over use any utility that moves files around and can cause damage.
Incidently Symantic just released a downloadable free beta copy of NUM for X. It doesn't include speed disk just yet however. I've tried it and it seems to work fine so far.
My experience has been a little different than Jim's. It's slow, there's no speed disk app, and in addition to finding a bunch of "errors" (I've had zero problems with my system) it can't repair without the "CD", the stuffit archive is in Classic format so you have to launch Classic just to get the damn installer on your OS X hard disk. Typical Norton sloppiness. They suck hairy rhino nuts.
I'm waiting for TechTool X, which should be released this summer according to some friendly e-mails I've received from reputable, non-rumor-site sources.
That's unfortunate, Moogs. In any case, I want to see what the final productr looks like to a bunch of people before I go an buy it. What did you suggest - TechTool? I'll think about that too. Does it defragment drives?
I'm sorry that you are having trouble with the beta but, it is beta. I saw errors also but they were modification date errors and bundle bit errors ( small stuff ). After using it my computer still works fine. I didn't say everyone should try it ( it is beta after all ) but for the most part it works like most betas I've seen from Symantic. Slow with the first release faster as time goes on. Kind of like another piece of software I use. The only thing I've been dissapointed about is that it's taken them so long to come out with this. But, I blamed that on OS X settling down.
I did note already that it didn't include Speed Disk.
The point of my post was that Speed Disk from my copy of System Works has worked fine for almost a year now.
With today's hard drives, degfragging isn't even very important, since seek times are so low. I've even read that defragging can slow some things down, for example, if the HD needs to read info from an app, and then the heads have to haul ass over to where a document is, and the back to the app, in a fragmented drive this may actually require less head movement.
I'm ignorant about this technical matter, so I might have botched up relaying what I previously read. But I do know this: using OS 8.6 through 9.2, I have NEVER detected any change in performance after defragging a disk, even if the disk was fragmented as much as 30%.
If anyone has experienced a performance boost from defraggin', I'd love to hear about it. But I don't think anyone has, at least not on a modern computer. People defrag because of the warm fuzzy feeling they get afterwards, not because of any performance gains.
Also, if your directory structure is fu[ked up when you defrag, then you risk losing serious amounts of data. Yes you can run a disk utility to fix the directories, but what if it doesn't fix them 100%? Thus, you've always got to back up before defragging. That's an awful lot of work for something that doesn't even really do much of anything.
If defragging a disk was vitally important, wouldn't it follow that Apple would incorporate a defragging utility into the OS?
Comments
<strong>I used Notron Speed Disk once a month while I was in OS 9. Now, I''m wondering if that's the best thing to do with an OS X system. Should I shell out for the OS X-compatible Norton Utilites or can I get a freeware defragmneter?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd shell out for Diskwarrior, personally. It's a kick ass tool.
<strong>DiskWarrior optimizes directories, not the whole drive. I dunno whether it works for OS X as well as 9.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When you order the DiskWarrior CD, you also get PlusOptimizer, which defrags and optimizes files. Both work well on all disks (9 or X, but not UFS) when booted from the CD (9.x). The OS X native version is expected in Feb.
So can I run Norton Utilities from disk as well? I won't be running the latest version though.... I think I'll install it on my Pismo, upgrade, then run Speed Disk on my FireWire targeted iMac HD.
I've never tried Plus Optimizer. does it make a graphical representation of your HD like Speed Disk does? I'll haveto try it.
<strong>Hmm. So directories aren't different from OS 9 to X? Surprising.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nah. They're both the same format (HFS+) so they both have the same file layout and formats. Norton should work fine (depending on what version it is, of course.) I think 4 or later will work, but I haven't tried it myself. In any case, make a backup before trying it.
<strong>Why do you need to defrag X? I believe that that is unneccessary. Unxi files never move, there isn't reshuffling so I don't think you need to worry about defragging X ever again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Eeeh, i didn't realize that there wasn't need to delete or create new files under Unix. I'll stop doing it right away!
<strong>Why do you need to defrag X? I believe that that is unneccessary. Unxi files never move, there isn't reshuffling so I don't think you need to worry about defragging X ever again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? I looked at the Speed Disk graphical representation of my HD on OS X and t was most certainly fragmented.
<strong>
Really? I looked at the Speed Disk graphical representation of my HD on OS X and t was most certainly fragmented.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that's what all the techie people were saying when people whined that Drive 10 didn't defrag. Quite a few people said X wouldn't defrag at least no where near the level that pre-X or 9 and under did because of the unix file stuctures.
What in the "unix file structure" makes it not easily fragmented?
i know that the various file systems makes fragmentation occur less (such as freebsd's fs, which i forget it's name right now) but since it still uses HFS+, i don't see how that would help.
Anyhow, i was just wondering what people thought (or why HFS+ didn't need to be defragmented)
Ted
You'll need to boot from a different drive or system CD to do this.
But, best of all, it's free.
[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
Really, KidRed? I've read stories of how the swap file (if not on a dedicated partition) can hack your HD to pieces. Also, I've run Norton Speed Disk a number of times on my X partition. It's fragged, so I fix it. Some months later, fragged again. So I fix it (fragged-- not unoptimized). How did that happen if things never get fragged? I have a fragged Help App that won't even launch because it's so damnaged-- Norton and even ResEdit can't fix it. I never used the dang thing up to the time I realized it was broken. How might it have gotten damaged?
<strong>
Really, KidRed? I've read stories of how the swap file (if not on a dedicated partition) can hack your HD to pieces. Also, I've run Norton Speed Disk a number of times on my X partition. It's fragged, so I fix it. Some months later, fragged again. So I fix it (fragged-- not unoptimized). How did that happen if things never get fragged? I have a fragged Help App that won't even launch because it's so damnaged-- Norton and even ResEdit can't fix it. I never used the dang thing up to the time I realized it was broken. How might it have gotten damaged?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah gee, I'm not sure smart ass, let's see, maybe because you ran NU on it? I've read where that has killed some drives before. Read my ****ing post again, I am going by what I read and relaying that info. I never claimed that X doesn't get defragged, just that I read that X doesn't get fragged the same way previous OS's did.
[quote] Just a guess but when you defrag you may get rid of the optimizations done by installers(I.E. prebinding). <hr></blockquote>
[quote]Unfortunately, none of the profiles currently shipped with Norton work very well with OSX. They won't break the disk, of course, but they'll slow things down. Someone apparently made a very good one several months ago, but I don't know where to find it now. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] Two questions:
1) Why do you feel the need to defrag your hard drive when you don't even know how OSX prebinding works?
2) Why do you need to make a boot disk? If you had a retail version of Diskwarrior or Norton you would not have to make one.
Mac's are simple as hell to defrag. Things get complicated when you don't know how OSX works and when you use pirated software.
You do not need to defrag your drive for OSX. I would love to know why you feel the need to. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] When you install an OSX update it prebinds so without getting fancy is is pretty much doing the same thing as diskwarrior.
Apple does not say that optimizing your drive is necessary, the only native OSX disk utility "Drive X" does not have an optimizer. And even when people still optimize things get SLOWER. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] Ok- good! This above and Mal's post clear this up for me. It seems obvious that defragging will undo the prebinding (assuming that "location" means physical location on the drive...) <hr></blockquote>
[quote]If you run your disk with any modern filesystem and a great deal of free space, you may find that you never have to worry about defragmenting. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] - I'm sure that some people go overboard with their use of disk utilities, but that isn't to say they don't have their place. Actual defragging probably won't affect drive performance unless the disk is severely fragmented (which, unfortunately, isn't uncommon running OS X with minimal memory and no dedicated swap partition); however, defragging any disk carries with it the risk of badly messing said disk up. Doesn't happen often. But it does happen. <hr></blockquote>
and finally-
[quote] Posts: 732
From: Rochester, NY
Registered: Sep 2000
\t posted 11-23-2001 01:42 PM Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â* Â*Â* Â*Â*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep in mind that files are placed where they are on disk only when they are written out. If the OS writes out an 80mb swap file, which never gets bigger or smaller, it will *never* get any more fragmented than it was when it was initially created.
The best thing to do, then, is just to leave your swap files alone. Your swap files created when your install is new will likely be entirely contiguous -- and nothing will change that unless the files are deleted, and the OS needs to recreate them later when your file system is a tad more fragmented.
Honestly, the best thing you can do is let the OS create its swap files, and the leave 'em alone. They won't become fragemented over time -- when a file is created, it "locks in" its place on the disk drive, and unless the file is made larger, it will never become any more fragmented than it initially was.
This is one reason why Mac OS X uses fixed-sized swap files -- I also wouldn't be too surprised if it tried *really* hard to create swap files on a contiguous area of the disk when they *do* need to be created.
The best thing you can do to speed up Mac OS X is bitchin' to Apple to get on the stick and speed it up and/or purchase new hardware (which are slightly conflicting goals for Apple ). Sure, defragging might help a little bit, and it is nice to feel empowered, but the difference shouldn't be all that huge for most things.
If your computer is *really* thrashing VM so much that fragmentation makes a difference, you'd be a lot better off grabbing another 512mb of RAM for $50 or so ( <a href="http://www.ramjet.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.ramjet.com/</a>; ) than defragging your hard drive constantly. <hr></blockquote>
Now, what were you saying?
What you are saying about his swap file is true however, from what I've read that no fragmentation thing in unix only works if you are using UFS. If you are using HFS+ it fragments just the same because it's the same file system. Maybe someone who's more knowlegable could chime in here ( like Applenut ). I could be mistaken but I believe that's what I've read on the subject.
As far Norton Speed Disk I've always used it. When I first installed OS X Norton showed severe fragmentation and you could see it in the pattern window. When I optimized OS X got faster not slower. I generally use it once a month ( booting from the CD in X ) depending on how much stuff I've thrown away or added.
Can you use this too much? Yes most definitely. You can over use any utility that moves files around and can cause damage.
Incidently Symantic just released a downloadable free beta copy of NUM for X. It doesn't include speed disk just yet however. I've tried it and it seems to work fine so far.
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
My experience has been a little different than Jim's. It's slow, there's no speed disk app, and in addition to finding a bunch of "errors" (I've had zero problems with my system) it can't repair without the "CD", the stuffit archive is in Classic format so you have to launch Classic just to get the damn installer on your OS X hard disk. Typical Norton sloppiness. They suck hairy rhino nuts.
I'm waiting for TechTool X, which should be released this summer according to some friendly e-mails I've received from reputable, non-rumor-site sources.
Fu*k Norton.
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
I'm sorry that you are having trouble with the beta but, it is beta. I saw errors also but they were modification date errors and bundle bit errors ( small stuff ). After using it my computer still works fine. I didn't say everyone should try it ( it is beta after all ) but for the most part it works like most betas I've seen from Symantic. Slow with the first release faster as time goes on. Kind of like another piece of software I use. The only thing I've been dissapointed about is that it's taken them so long to come out with this. But, I blamed that on OS X settling down.
I did note already that it didn't include Speed Disk.
The point of my post was that Speed Disk from my copy of System Works has worked fine for almost a year now.
[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
I'm ignorant about this technical matter, so I might have botched up relaying what I previously read. But I do know this: using OS 8.6 through 9.2, I have NEVER detected any change in performance after defragging a disk, even if the disk was fragmented as much as 30%.
If anyone has experienced a performance boost from defraggin', I'd love to hear about it. But I don't think anyone has, at least not on a modern computer. People defrag because of the warm fuzzy feeling they get afterwards, not because of any performance gains.
Also, if your directory structure is fu[ked up when you defrag, then you risk losing serious amounts of data. Yes you can run a disk utility to fix the directories, but what if it doesn't fix them 100%? Thus, you've always got to back up before defragging. That's an awful lot of work for something that doesn't even really do much of anything.
If defragging a disk was vitally important, wouldn't it follow that Apple would incorporate a defragging utility into the OS?
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>