My Feature Request: Smarter defrag...

[mikkokh]

Hi.

 

I think that it would be better if Smart Defrag would defrag one partiton on single HDD at once when there would be several selected partitions on that same HDD... Rest of partitions on that HDD would be waitting their own turn in queue.

 

At now, when I defrag multiple partitions on same HDD with same job, system read and write them all simultaneously... I think that it would not be good for HDD, or even do defrag process any faster.

 

What do you all think about this?

[daath]

I agree. It should know that two partitions are on the same physical disk. Defrag several disks at the same time, but defragging partitions on the same disk in a queue - That would be cool.

[mikkokh]

Thanks about your support, Daath.

 

I think that many peoples would not use many partitions on their Windows system, but I am one of them that would use. Also, when someone has multiple Windows installations on her/his computer there would be large probably that HDD would be several partitions for differend OS installations.

 

My Windows OS is installed to 25GB primary partition (C:) and most of other files (including MP3's, pictures, MPEG video's, ISO images and games...) are on next partition (D:) on that same HDD. We all know that physically first partiton (on mechanical HDD) would be mostly fastest because partition would be located most center of the HDD medias where read head can read comparably faster data than outside of disc.

 

Best reason for me to use many partitions on single HDD is that files on primary partition (C:) are always on that fastest part of physically media and those other "no so time crictical" files can't mess with them from that second partition (D:). "Messing" mean in this case fragmentation together - that would slow down reading of generally used OS files and (pecause of it), also working of OS.

[solbjerg]

Hi mikkokh

Take a look in this thread by enoskype located in the Lounge section

http://forums.iobit.com/showthread.php?t=612

The outer tracks are the fastest due to the formula 2*π*r which means that the outer tracks travel a longer distance than the middle or especially the inner ones for every revolution.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

Thanks about your support, Daath.

 

I think that many peoples would not use many partitions on their Windows system, but I am one of them that would use. Also, when someone has multiple Windows installations on her/his computer there would be large probably that HDD would be several partitions for differend OS installations.

 

My Windows OS is installed to 25GB primary partition (C:) and most of other files (including MP3's, pictures, MPEG video's, ISO images and games...) are on next partition (D:) on that same HDD. We all know that physically first partiton (on mechanical HDD) would be mostly fastest because partition would be located most center of the HDD medias where read head can read comparably faster data than outside of disc.

 

Best reason for me to use many partitions on single HDD is that files on primary partition (C:) are always on that fastest part of physically media and those other "no so time crictical" files can't mess with them from that second partition (D:). "Messing" mean in this case fragmentation together - that would slow down reading of generally used OS files and (pecause of it), also working of OS.

[mikkokh]

Hi mikkokh

Take a look in this thread by enoskype located in the Lounge section

http://forums.iobit.com/showthread.php?t=612

The outer tracks are the fastest due to the formula 2*π*r which means that the outer tracks travel a longer distance than the middle or especially the inner ones for every revolution.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

Thanks about your comment. I think that something of my thinking model of this thing is somehow going wrong... I think that only inner and outer tracks are mixed up on my mind.

[solbjerg]

Hi mikkokh

My rule of thumb would be that the outer third of the disk contains about half of the disk's capacity and that the outer tracks have a much higher m pr. sec. than the inner ones. I did a calculation in the thread I referred you to quite a while back.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

Thanks about your comment. I think that something of my thinking model of this thing is somehow going wrong... I think that only inner and outer tracks are mixed up on my mind.