How much free space? 250gb drives

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

How much space do I need to keep free on 250GB drives used for storage? I'm
using diskeeper as a defragger which recommends 20% which is a significant
amout of space
40 answers Last reply
More about free space 250gb drives
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    10% is enough for FAT32, 10-20% for NTFS depending on MFT zone. However,
    don't expect files of 100+ of MB to defrag.

    "leadfoot" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:1Ag1e.8006$TZ.351@okepread06...
    > How much space do I need to keep free on 250GB drives used for storage?
    I'm
    > using diskeeper as a defragger which recommends 20% which is a significant
    > amout of space
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously leadfoot <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    > How much space do I need to keep free on 250GB drives used for storage? I'm
    > using diskeeper as a defragger which recommends 20% which is a significant
    > amout of space

    Unix standard is 5%. But most Unix filesystems don't fragment
    easily. If you have to use a defragger, maybe you should change
    the filesystem in the first place.

    It is really just a performance issue. You can fill up the drive
    to 100% if you like. If you keep 1 GB or so free, you should still
    be able to run a defragger, although it may take some time.

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

    Arno Wagner wrote:
    > Previously leadfoot <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    >>How much space do I need to keep free on 250GB drives used for storage? I'm
    >>using diskeeper as a defragger which recommends 20% which is a significant
    >>amout of space
    >
    >
    > Unix standard is 5%. But most Unix filesystems don't fragment
    > easily. If you have to use a defragger, maybe you should change
    > the filesystem in the first place.
    >
    > It is really just a performance issue. You can fill up the drive
    > to 100% if you like. If you keep 1 GB or so free, you should still
    > be able to run a defragger, although it may take some time.
    >
    > Arno
    >
    I run my Unix filesystems (other than root) right up to the edge
    of full, and never defrag. "Defragging" is an issue mostly for
    Windows users. If/when it's done in the Unix world, I think it's
    usually via a backup & reload (and, coincidentally, that's the
    best/fastest way to accomplish it in the Windows world -- e.g. by
    Ghosting to a spare drive and back again one can often achieve a
    defragged drive much faster than via defrag software).

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> Previously leadfoot <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>How much space do I need to keep free on 250GB drives used for storage? I'm
    >>>using diskeeper as a defragger which recommends 20% which is a significant
    >>>amout of space
    >>
    >>
    >> Unix standard is 5%. But most Unix filesystems don't fragment
    >> easily. If you have to use a defragger, maybe you should change
    >> the filesystem in the first place.
    >>
    >> It is really just a performance issue. You can fill up the drive
    >> to 100% if you like. If you keep 1 GB or so free, you should still
    >> be able to run a defragger, although it may take some time.
    >>
    >> Arno
    >>
    > I run my Unix filesystems (other than root) right up to the edge
    > of full, and never defrag.

    Same here.

    > "Defragging" is an issue mostly for
    > Windows users. If/when it's done in the Unix world, I think it's
    > usually via a backup & reload (and, coincidentally, that's the
    > best/fastest way to accomplish it in the Windows world -- e.g. by
    > Ghosting to a spare drive and back again one can often achieve a
    > defragged drive much faster than via defrag software).

    Yes, I agree to that fully. Matches my observations.

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

    I'm using WinXP MCE2005 SP2
    "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:3allhcF6b6kkoU2@individual.net...
    > Previously CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
    >> Arno Wagner wrote:
    >>> Previously leadfoot <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>How much space do I need to keep free on 250GB drives used for storage?
    >>>>I'm
    >>>>using diskeeper as a defragger which recommends 20% which is a
    >>>>significant
    >>>>amout of space
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Unix standard is 5%. But most Unix filesystems don't fragment
    >>> easily. If you have to use a defragger, maybe you should change
    >>> the filesystem in the first place.
    >>>
    >>> It is really just a performance issue. You can fill up the drive
    >>> to 100% if you like. If you keep 1 GB or so free, you should still
    >>> be able to run a defragger, although it may take some time.
    >>>
    >>> Arno
    >>>
    >> I run my Unix filesystems (other than root) right up to the edge
    >> of full, and never defrag.
    >
    > Same here.
    >
    >> "Defragging" is an issue mostly for
    >> Windows users. If/when it's done in the Unix world, I think it's
    >> usually via a backup & reload (and, coincidentally, that's the
    >> best/fastest way to accomplish it in the Windows world -- e.g. by
    >> Ghosting to a spare drive and back again one can often achieve a
    >> defragged drive much faster than via defrag software).
    >
    > Yes, I agree to that fully. Matches my observations.
    >
    > Arno
    >
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "leadfoot" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:1Ag1e.8006$TZ.351@okepread06...
    > How much space do I need to keep free on 250GB drives used for storage?
    > I'm using diskeeper as a defragger which recommends 20% which is a
    > significant amout of space
    >

    According to Windows' help XP's built-in debugger requires 15% for full
    defragmentation.

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

    Previously Derek Baker <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
    > "leadfoot" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:1Ag1e.8006$TZ.351@okepread06...
    >> How much space do I need to keep free on 250GB drives used for storage?
    >> I'm using diskeeper as a defragger which recommends 20% which is a
    >> significant amout of space
    >>

    > According to Windows' help XP's built-in debugger requires 15% for full
    > defragmentation.

    Ooops. Not too professional!

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

    leadfoot wrote:
    > I'm using WinXP MCE2005 SP2

    my condolences
    <snip>

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:4245DCB9.10105@prodigy.net...
    > leadfoot wrote:
    >> I'm using WinXP MCE2005 SP2
    >
    > my condolences

    Why I'm pretty happy with it

    > <snip>
    >
    > --
    > The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    > minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:3am3dhF6ak5u3U3@individual.net...
    > Previously Derek Baker <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
    >> "leadfoot" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    >> news:1Ag1e.8006$TZ.351@okepread06...
    >>> How much space do I need to keep free on 250GB drives used for storage?
    >>> I'm using diskeeper as a defragger which recommends 20% which is a
    >>> significant amout of space
    >>>
    >
    >> According to Windows' help XP's built-in debugger requires 15% for full
    >> defragmentation.
    >
    > Ooops. Not too professional!
    >
    > Arno
    >
    >

    Me or Windows? :)

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

    Previously Derek Baker <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
    > "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    > news:3am3dhF6ak5u3U3@individual.net...
    >> Previously Derek Baker <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
    >>> "leadfoot" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:1Ag1e.8006$TZ.351@okepread06...
    >>>> How much space do I need to keep free on 250GB drives used for storage?
    >>>> I'm using diskeeper as a defragger which recommends 20% which is a
    >>>> significant amout of space
    >>>>
    >>
    >>> According to Windows' help XP's built-in debugger requires 15% for full
    >>> defragmentation.
    >>
    >> Ooops. Not too professional!
    >>
    >> Arno
    >>
    >>

    > Me or Windows? :)

    Sorry. The product of course.

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

    leadfoot <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    message news:1Ag1e.8006$TZ.351@okepread06...

    > How much space do I need to keep free on 250GB drives used for storage?

    There is no nice tidy answer, because it
    depends on the size of the files that change.

    > I'm using diskeeper as a defragger which recommends 20% which is a
    > significant amout of space

    Makes more sense to give up on defragging
    unless you are using the drive unusually.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:25:54 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >Makes more sense to give up on defragging
    >unless you are using the drive unusually.

    Rod I do a lot of copying of MP3 files from the HD to both CD & DVD
    media.

    I was under the impression that when the files on the HD have a lot of
    fragmentation it can adversely effect the copying to CD & DVD? Now id
    this is not true I could give up the defrag totally.

    Any advice on this?

    Thanks for your time and help.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "leadfoot" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:1Ag1e.8006$TZ.351@okepread06...
    > How much space do I need to keep free on 250GB drives used for storage?
    I'm
    > using diskeeper as a defragger which recommends 20% which is a
    significant
    > amout of space
    >
    >

    Going to stay out of that question. I do suggest, however, if you're
    storing some sort of video or partition image files or other large MB/GB
    files that you do not defragment the partition that holds them. And you
    keep such on a partition independent of the operating system. If doing so,
    that nulls your question to partition size of the operating system, not the
    HD space capacity.

    Adequate available physical memory is also a consideration when
    defragmenting. Odd you did not ask that question in tandem with the
    available disk space question. And, the swapfile size capacity can be an
    issue as well if you keep the swapfile on an independent hard drive or if
    its on the same hard drive/partition as the OS. The latter affecting the
    available freespace of the partition you intend to defragment.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
    news:20x1e.6516$z.1130@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > "leadfoot" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:1Ag1e.8006$TZ.351@okepread06...
    >> How much space do I need to keep free on 250GB drives used for storage?
    > I'm
    >> using diskeeper as a defragger which recommends 20% which is a
    > significant
    >> amout of space
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Going to stay out of that question. I do suggest, however, if you're
    > storing some sort of video or partition image files or other large MB/GB
    > files that you do not defragment the partition that holds them. And you
    > keep such on a partition independent of the operating system. If doing
    > so,
    > that nulls your question to partition size of the operating system, not
    > the
    > HD space capacity.
    >
    > Adequate available physical memory is also a consideration when
    > defragmenting. Odd you did not ask that question in tandem with the
    > available disk space question.

    I have 1GB dual channel of memory. Do I need more? ;-)


    And, the swapfile size capacity can be an
    > issue as well if you keep the swapfile on an independent hard drive or if
    > its on the same hard drive/partition as the OS.

    I have six 250gb hard drives.

    The latter affecting the
    > available freespace of the partition you intend to defragment.
    >
    >
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously Arlene wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:25:54 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
    > wrote:

    >>Makes more sense to give up on defragging
    >>unless you are using the drive unusually.

    > Rod I do a lot of copying of MP3 files from the HD to both CD & DVD
    > media.

    > I was under the impression that when the files on the HD have a lot of
    > fragmentation it can adversely effect the copying to CD & DVD? Now id
    > this is not true I could give up the defrag totally.

    > Any advice on this?

    Depends. If the fragmentation is enough to slow the read speed below
    the speed at which you write the CD/DVD the burner needs to be able to
    deal with an interrupted data stream. If it has "BurnProof" or the
    like, then it is not a problem. If it does not, then you will loose
    media.

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

    <Arlene> wrote in message news:kp8c41h8drokga6os5ntdcdvbcbf7k4n1i@4ax.com...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >> Makes more sense to give up on defragging
    >> unless you are using the drive unusually.

    > Rod I do a lot of copying of MP3 files
    > from the HD to both CD & DVD media.

    Dont need to defrag in that situation.

    > I was under the impression that when the files on the HD have a lot
    > of fragmentation it can adversely effect the copying to CD & DVD?

    Nope, its irrelevant.

    > Now id this is not true I could give up the defrag totally.

    > Any advice on this?

    Give up the defragging, it will work fine.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:59:58 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >> Rod I do a lot of copying of MP3 files
    >> from the HD to both CD & DVD media.
    >
    >Dont need to defrag in that situation.

    Fantastic.

    >>> I was under the impression that when the files on the HD have a lot
    >> of fragmentation it can adversely effect the copying to CD & DVD?
    >
    >Nope, its irrelevant.

    Getting even better.

    >> Now id this is not true I could give up the defrag totally.

    >Give up the defragging, it will work fine.

    Perfect! Thanks Rod that is one less pain to bother with. :-))

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

    On 27 Mar 2005 15:20:37 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:


    >Depends. If the fragmentation is enough to slow the read speed below
    >the speed at which you write the CD/DVD the burner needs to be able to
    >deal with an interrupted data stream. If it has "BurnProof" or the
    >like, then it is not a problem. If it does not, then you will loose
    >media.

    Both my Plextor (CD) and Sony (DVD) use "Burn Proof." So looks like I
    will be home free.

    Thanks Arno for the follow-up, much appreciated.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:3ao1a5F6bfc02U2@individual.net...
    > Arlene wrote
    >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >>> Makes more sense to give up on defragging
    >>> unless you are using the drive unusually.

    >> Rod I do a lot of copying of MP3 files
    >> from the HD to both CD & DVD media.

    >> I was under the impression that when the files on the HD have a
    >> lot of fragmentation it can adversely effect the copying to CD &
    >> DVD? Now id this is not true I could give up the defrag totally.

    >> Any advice on this?

    > Depends. If the fragmentation is enough to slow the read speed
    > below the speed at which you write the CD/DVD the burner needs
    > to be able to deal with an interrupted data stream.

    Taint gunna happen, because even a fragmented file on the hard drive
    is accessed MUCH more quickly than the CD/DVD burner can burn it.

    And MP3s arent likely to be that fragmented anyway.

    > If it has "BurnProof" or the like, then it is not a problem.
    > If it does not, then you will loose media.

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

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    > news:3ao1a5F6bfc02U2@individual.net...
    >
    >>Arlene wrote
    >>
    >>>Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >
    >
    >>>>Makes more sense to give up on defragging
    >>>>unless you are using the drive unusually.
    >
    >
    >>>Rod I do a lot of copying of MP3 files
    >>>from the HD to both CD & DVD media.
    >
    >
    >>>I was under the impression that when the files on the HD have a
    >>>lot of fragmentation it can adversely effect the copying to CD &
    >>>DVD? Now id this is not true I could give up the defrag totally.
    >
    >
    >>>Any advice on this?
    >
    >
    >>Depends. If the fragmentation is enough to slow the read speed
    >>below the speed at which you write the CD/DVD the burner needs
    >>to be able to deal with an interrupted data stream.
    >
    >
    > Taint gunna happen, because even a fragmented file on the hard drive
    > is accessed MUCH more quickly than the CD/DVD burner can burn it.

    Some burners have very high data rates. And not all hard disks are new.

    >
    > And MP3s arent likely to be that fragmented anyway.

    That's unknowable. It depends on the state of the disk when the MP3 is
    written.
    >
    >
    >>If it has "BurnProof" or the like, then it is not a problem.
    >>If it does not, then you will loose media.
    >
    >
    > Nope.
    >
    >


    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3ao9i2F6bn29qU1
    @individual.net:

    > And MP3s arent likely to be that fragmented anyway.

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

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:44:01 GMT, Euan Kerr <aaargh@invalid.jp> wrote:

    >"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3ao9i2F6bn29qU1
    >@individual.net:
    >
    >> And MP3s arent likely to be that fragmented anyway.
    >
    >Bullshit.

    Now that's an answer that should be in a FAQ regarding: Attaining
    maturity and intelligence.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    IDIDIT <v.sch@verizon.net> wrote in
    news:0s6e41lipfbjpe3ermoqo2n79tijc75ng4@4ax.com:

    > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:44:01 GMT, Euan Kerr <aaargh@invalid.jp>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3ao9i2F6bn29qU1
    >>@individual.net:
    >>
    >>> And MP3s arent likely to be that fragmented anyway.
    >>
    >>Bullshit.
    >
    You must be new here.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    IDIDIT wrote:

    > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:44:01 GMT, Euan Kerr <aaargh@invalid.jp> wrote:
    >
    >>"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3ao9i2F6bn29qU1
    >>@individual.net:
    >>
    >>> And MP3s arent likely to be that fragmented anyway.
    >>
    >>Bullshit.
    >
    > Now that's an answer that should be in a FAQ regarding: Attaining
    > maturity and intelligence.

    Actually, "clueless" would have been the proper response, that being the
    Rodbot's usual response to just about anything.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:4246F8AB.5000002@prodigy.net...
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >> Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    >> news:3ao1a5F6bfc02U2@individual.net...
    >>
    >>>Arlene wrote
    >>>
    >>>>Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>Makes more sense to give up on defragging
    >>>>>unless you are using the drive unusually.
    >>
    >>
    >>>>Rod I do a lot of copying of MP3 files
    >>>>from the HD to both CD & DVD media.
    >>
    >>
    >>>>I was under the impression that when the files on the HD have a
    >>>>lot of fragmentation it can adversely effect the copying to CD &
    >>>>DVD? Now id this is not true I could give up the defrag totally.
    >>
    >>
    >>>>Any advice on this?
    >>
    >>
    >>>Depends. If the fragmentation is enough to slow the read speed
    >>>below the speed at which you write the CD/DVD the burner needs
    >>>to be able to deal with an interrupted data stream.
    >>
    >>
    >> Taint gunna happen, because even a fragmented file on the hard drive
    >> is accessed MUCH more quickly than the CD/DVD burner can burn it.

    > Some burners have very high data rates. And not all hard disks are new.

    Still no overlap.

    >> And MP3s arent likely to be that fragmented anyway.

    > That's unknowable.

    Nope.

    > It depends on the state of the disk when the MP3 is written.

    The word LIKELY was used for a reason.

    >>> If it has "BurnProof" or the like, then it is not a problem.
    >>> If it does not, then you will loose media.

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

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:3aog5eF6dmog2U1@individual.net...
    >
    > "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    > news:4246F8AB.5000002@prodigy.net...
    >> Rod Speed wrote:
    >>> Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:3ao1a5F6bfc02U2@individual.net...
    >>>
    >>>>Arlene wrote
    >>>>
    >>>>>Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>>Makes more sense to give up on defragging
    >>>>>>unless you are using the drive unusually.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>Rod I do a lot of copying of MP3 files
    >>>>>from the HD to both CD & DVD media.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>I was under the impression that when the files on the HD have a
    >>>>>lot of fragmentation it can adversely effect the copying to CD &
    >>>>>DVD? Now id this is not true I could give up the defrag totally.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>Any advice on this?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Depends. If the fragmentation is enough to slow the read speed
    >>>>below the speed at which you write the CD/DVD the burner needs
    >>>>to be able to deal with an interrupted data stream.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Taint gunna happen, because even a fragmented file on the hard drive
    >>> is accessed MUCH more quickly than the CD/DVD burner can burn it.
    >
    >> Some burners have very high data rates. And not all hard disks are new.

    > Still no overlap.

    And the question was asked about a 250G drive, plenty fast enough.

    >>> And MP3s arent likely to be that fragmented anyway.
    >
    >> That's unknowable.
    >
    > Nope.
    >
    >> It depends on the state of the disk when the MP3 is written.
    >
    > The word LIKELY was used for a reason.
    >
    >>>> If it has "BurnProof" or the like, then it is not a problem.
    >>>> If it does not, then you will loose media.
    >
    >>> Nope.
    >
    >
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Rod Speed wrote:
    <snip>
    > And the question was asked about a 250G drive, plenty fast enough.
    >
    ><snip>

    That's a good point. A 250GB drive _will_ be of recent vintage.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Euan Kerr <aaargh@invalid.jp> wrote in message
    news:Xns9626D33A5745DFlSxxx@194.168.222.121...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >> And MP3s arent likely to be that fragmented anyway.

    > Bullshit.

    Not with a drive that big, with the sort of free space being discussed.

    And they burn fine even when fragmented a bit anyway.

    No point obsessively defragging in that particular situation.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "leadfoot" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:oyA1e.9889$TZ.3919@okepread06...
    >
    > "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
    > news:20x1e.6516$z.1130@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > > "leadfoot" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > > news:1Ag1e.8006$TZ.351@okepread06...
    > >> How much space do I need to keep free on 250GB drives used for storage?
    > > I'm
    > >> using diskeeper as a defragger which recommends 20% which is a
    > > significant
    > >> amout of space
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > > Going to stay out of that question. I do suggest, however, if you're
    > > storing some sort of video or partition image files or other large MB/GB
    > > files that you do not defragment the partition that holds them. And
    you
    > > keep such on a partition independent of the operating system. If doing
    > > so,
    > > that nulls your question to partition size of the operating system, not
    > > the
    > > HD space capacity.
    > >
    > > Adequate available physical memory is also a consideration when
    > > defragmenting. Odd you did not ask that question in tandem with the
    > > available disk space question.
    >
    > I have 1GB dual channel of memory. Do I need more? ;-)
    >
    >

    Probably not.

    > And, the swapfile size capacity can be an
    > > issue as well if you keep the swapfile on an independent hard drive or
    if
    > > its on the same hard drive/partition as the OS.
    >
    > I have six 250gb hard drives.
    >

    My guess is that you must be using some video creation tool, these have
    their own swapfile, in addition to windows swapfile. The plot thickens.

    The number and capacity of the HDs mean nothing, you asked about freespace
    and percentage of the hard drive that should be freespace..

    > The latter affecting the
    > > available freespace of the partition you intend to defragment.
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:42473729.7040903@prodigy.net...
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    > <snip>
    >> And the question was asked about a 250G drive, plenty fast enough.
    >> <snip>
    >
    > That's a good point. A 250GB drive _will_ be of recent vintage.

    Yeah, thats what I meant.
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Euan Kerr" <aaargh@invalid.jp> wrote in message
    news:Xns9626F3BE7BE5FFlSxxx@62.253.162.203...
    > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in
    > news:3aon3bF6ec3ngU1@individual.net:
    >
    >>
    >> Euan Kerr <aaargh@invalid.jp> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns9626D33A5745DFlSxxx@194.168.222.121...
    >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>
    >>>> And MP3s arent likely to be that fragmented anyway.
    >>
    >>> Bullshit.
    >>
    >> Not with a drive that big, ....

    > Nothing to do with MP3s then.

    Fraid so, thats what she said she wants to store them on, fool.

    Reams of your puerile attempts to bullshit your way
    out of your predicament flushed where it belongs.

    Cant even manage it own lines. How pathetic is that ?
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    <Arlene> wrote in message news:mn2f41piqfav0o1sbva93of2ho2vdpcd40@4ax.com
    > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:59:58 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > > Rod I do a lot of copying of MP3 files
    > > > from the HD to both CD & DVD media.
    > >
    > > Dont need to defrag in that situation.
    >
    > Fantastic.
    >
    > > > > I was under the impression that when the files on the HD have a lot
    > > > of fragmentation it can adversely effect the copying to CD & DVD?
    > >
    > > Nope, its irrelevant.
    >
    > Getting even better.
    >
    > > > Now id this is not true I could give up the defrag totally.
    >
    > > Give up the defragging, it will work fine.
    >
    > Perfect! Thanks Rod that is one less pain to bother with. :-))
    >
    > Thanks for replying.

    Enjoy your snake-oil.
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Arlene wrote in news:mn2f41piqfav0o1sbva93of2ho2vdpcd40@4ax.com:

    > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:59:58 +1000, "Rod Speed"
    > <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    ....

    >>Give up the defragging, it will work fine.
    >
    > Perfect! Thanks Rod that is one less pain to bother with. :-))

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

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:53:17 GMT, Euan Kerr <aaargh@invalid.jp> wrote:

    >Arlene wrote in news:mn2f41piqfav0o1sbva93of2ho2vdpcd40@4ax.com:
    >
    >> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:59:58 +1000, "Rod Speed"
    >> <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >...
    >
    >>>Give up the defragging, it will work fine.
    >>
    >> Perfect! Thanks Rod that is one less pain to bother with. :-))
    >
    >LOL!

    I am so glad you had a good laugh.

    A small follow-up. As is our practice every Monday morning 20 DVD's
    and 50 CDR's left our office by messenger. These discs were burned on
    Sunday. Many of the MP3's were indeed fragmented. But as both Ron and
    Arno suggested no defragmentation was done. The discs were just
    burned.

    It is now after 10 PM EST and not one call from any of the 50 clients
    that received these discs. Trust me if there was any problem in
    reading them they would have been screaming on the phone instantly.

    So maybe the laugh is on you?

    Again I thank Ron and Arno for the help.

    You can now play your little games that you seem to enjoy so much.

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

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:57:54 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
    <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

    ><Arlene> wrote in message news:mn2f41piqfav0o1sbva93of2ho2vdpcd40@4ax.com
    >> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:59:58 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> > > Rod I do a lot of copying of MP3 files
    >> > > from the HD to both CD & DVD media.
    >> >
    >> > Dont need to defrag in that situation.
    >>
    >> Fantastic.
    >>
    >> > > > I was under the impression that when the files on the HD have a lot
    >> > > of fragmentation it can adversely effect the copying to CD & DVD?
    >> >
    >> > Nope, its irrelevant.
    >>
    >> Getting even better.
    >>
    >> > > Now id this is not true I could give up the defrag totally.
    >>
    >> > Give up the defragging, it will work fine.
    >>
    >> Perfect! Thanks Rod that is one less pain to bother with. :-))
    >>
    >> Thanks for replying.
    >
    >Enjoy your snake-oil.

    Lets cut the nonsense. If you have something to say then say it and
    detail the facts. If not just go back too playing with yourself.
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously Arlene wrote:
    > On 27 Mar 2005 15:20:37 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:


    >>Depends. If the fragmentation is enough to slow the read speed below
    >>the speed at which you write the CD/DVD the burner needs to be able to
    >>deal with an interrupted data stream. If it has "BurnProof" or the
    >>like, then it is not a problem. If it does not, then you will loose
    >>media.

    > Both my Plextor (CD) and Sony (DVD) use "Burn Proof." So looks like I
    > will be home free.

    Indeed.

    > Thanks Arno for the follow-up, much appreciated.

    You are welcome.

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

    Previously Arlene wrote:
    > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:53:17 GMT, Euan Kerr <aaargh@invalid.jp> wrote:

    >>Arlene wrote in news:mn2f41piqfav0o1sbva93of2ho2vdpcd40@4ax.com:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:59:58 +1000, "Rod Speed"
    >>> <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>...
    >>
    >>>>Give up the defragging, it will work fine.
    >>>
    >>> Perfect! Thanks Rod that is one less pain to bother with. :-))
    >>
    >>LOL!

    > I am so glad you had a good laugh.

    > A small follow-up. As is our practice every Monday morning 20 DVD's
    > and 50 CDR's left our office by messenger. These discs were burned on
    > Sunday. Many of the MP3's were indeed fragmented. But as both Ron and
    > Arno suggested no defragmentation was done. The discs were just
    > burned.

    > It is now after 10 PM EST and not one call from any of the 50 clients
    > that received these discs. Trust me if there was any problem in
    > reading them they would have been screaming on the phone instantly.

    Interesting. Mind if I ask what kind of business this is?
    If you mind, just ignore the question.

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

    On 29 Mar 2005 12:26:36 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:


    >Interesting. Mind if I ask what kind of business this is?

    We monitor the major outlets both radio and TV for mention of our
    clients and their products.

    Sort of like the old clipping services. :-)

    >If you mind, just ignore the question.

    No problem.
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Ron Speed wrote:

    >"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
    >>
    >> Why does this newsgroup seem to attract j*ck*sses?
    >
    >They all do, stupid.

    Well, you would know, Ron^Hd.
Ask a new question

Read More

Hardware Storage Free Space