Raid 0 and defrag

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I setup a RAID 0 with two Raptor on ICHR5 on my Asus P4C800-E.

May be this has been asked before but I can't find it...

Is there any need to defrag a RAID 0 array? (Windows XP)

Thanks

Mr. Anderson
7 answers Last reply
More about raid defrag
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Mr. Anderson wrote:
    > I setup a RAID 0 with two Raptor on ICHR5 on my Asus P4C800-E.
    >
    > May be this has been asked before but I can't find it...
    >
    > Is there any need to defrag a RAID 0 array? (Windows XP)
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Mr. Anderson


    hmmm, just find it :-)

    "You never ever have to defragment a RAID0 array, preformance does not
    degrade with file fragmentation as with stand-alone drives and the disk
    contens take much more time to fragment as much as in stand-alone drives."

    Any other advice?

    Thanks
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In article <419F1ABC.9050304@TheMatrix.Net>, Neo@TheMatrix.Net says...
    > Mr. Anderson wrote:
    > > I setup a RAID 0 with two Raptor on ICHR5 on my Asus P4C800-E.
    > >
    > > May be this has been asked before but I can't find it...
    > >
    > > Is there any need to defrag a RAID 0 array? (Windows XP)
    >
    > hmmm, just find it :-)
    >
    > "You never ever have to defragment a RAID0 array, preformance does not
    > degrade with file fragmentation as with stand-alone drives and the disk
    > contens take much more time to fragment as much as in stand-alone drives."

    Where did you find that? That's not true. As far as Windows is
    concerned, it's just one big drive. It may not be quite as affected by
    fragmentation as a single drive, but it WILL be affected if it gets bad
    enough.

    NTFS fragments and is affected by it, no matter what the underlying
    hardware is. Even a Flash drive should show degradation. NTFS is a bit
    less sensitive to it than FAT, and faster hardware makes it less
    noticeable, but it STILL happens.

    I have a single 120G drive in my system, partitioned 10/110 (cloned
    when replacing a 40G partitioned 10/30). It originally came with the
    full 40G as FAT32, and ended up with 512 byte clusters when converted to
    NTFS. I ended up repartitioning it because 40G of 0.5K clusters is SLOW.
    Even reduced to 10G, I need to defrag every day or so because several
    programs, especially my newsreader, get noticeably slow.

    --
    If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
    All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
    law!!
    http://home.att.net/~andyross
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message news:MPG.1c090808c0b0df4989702@news.comcast.giganews.com...
    > In article <419F1ABC.9050304@TheMatrix.Net>, Neo@TheMatrix.Net says...
    > > Mr. Anderson wrote:
    > > > I setup a RAID 0 with two Raptor on ICHR5 on my Asus P4C800-E.
    > > >
    > > > May be this has been asked before but I can't find it...
    > > >
    > > > Is there any need to defrag a RAID 0 array? (Windows XP)
    > >
    > > hmmm, just find it :-)
    > >
    > > "You never ever have to defragment a RAID0 array, preformance does not
    > > degrade with file fragmentation as with stand-alone drives and the disk
    > > contens take much more time to fragment as much as in stand-alone drives."
    >
    > Where did you find that?

    Where he wrote that the first time under the Jure Sah pseudonym.

    > That's not true.

    Learn to ignore an obvious troll.
    Like the 3 minute difference between posts wasn't enough of a clue.

    > As far as Windows is concerned, it's just one big drive. It may not be quite as
    > affected by fragmentation as a single drive, but it WILL be affected if it gets
    > bad enough.
    >
    > NTFS fragments and is affected by it, no matter what the underlying
    > hardware is. Even a Flash drive should show degradation. NTFS is a bit
    > less sensitive to it than FAT, and faster hardware makes it less
    > noticeable, but it STILL happens.
    >
    > I have a single 120G drive in my system, partitioned 10/110 (cloned
    > when replacing a 40G partitioned 10/30). It originally came with the
    > full 40G as FAT32, and ended up with 512 byte clusters when converted to
    > NTFS. I ended up repartitioning it because 40G of 0.5K clusters is SLOW.
    > Even reduced to 10G, I need to defrag every day or so because several
    > programs, especially my newsreader, get noticeably slow.
    >
    > --
    > If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
    > All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!!
    > http://home.att.net/~andyross
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Thanks Andrew,

    I'm ignoring Mr Rienstra who is too much of a Troll himself to read
    message source...

    Mr. Anderson
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In article <41A07247.7010903@TheMatrix.Net>, Neo@TheMatrix.Net says...
    > Thanks Andrew,
    >
    > I'm ignoring Mr Rienstra who is too much of a Troll himself to read
    > message source...

    I should add that for basic use, the defrag built into Win2K and XP (a
    cut-down version of Diskeeper) is fine. Depending on what you use the
    computer for, once a week or so will be more than enough. You cannot
    schedule the built-in defrag to run automatically, so it's one of those
    things you have to remember to do. The main advantage of 3rd party
    defraggers are speed and scheduling. Other features like ordering files
    in a particular way are more hype than reality.

    --
    If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
    All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
    law!!
    http://home.att.net/~andyross
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Mr. Anderson" <Neo@TheMatrix.Net> wrote in message news:41A07247.7010903@TheMatrix.Net
    > Thanks Andrew,
    >
    > I'm ignoring Mr Rienstra who is too much of a Troll himself to read
    > message source...

    And you are doing such a fine job of ignoring me when 95% of this message is geared to me, rather than to Andrew.

    >
    > Mr. Anderson
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Diskeeper really is a cool program. When I heard about Diskeeper, it
    somehow rubbed me the wrong way and I was very much against its use. I
    guess it could have been the amazing claims made by the manufacturer, and
    the fact that I have not once seen a problem that was cured by a disk
    defragging. But I have to say, after using Diskeeper, I have become a big
    fan. It sounds funny to say, but my life feels more satisfying knowing my
    hard drives are defragged and because it happens automatically at midnight
    every night, I never have to think about it.

    --Dan


    "Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1c0a54e2ff0da681989703@news.comcast.giganews.com...
    > I should add that for basic use, the defrag built into Win2K and XP (a
    > cut-down version of Diskeeper) is fine. Depending on what you use the
    > computer for, once a week or so will be more than enough. You cannot
    > schedule the built-in defrag to run automatically, so it's one of those
    > things you have to remember to do. The main advantage of 3rd party
    > defraggers are speed and scheduling. Other features like ordering files
    > in a particular way are more hype than reality.
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

NAS / RAID Defragment Storage