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