Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

OS X Panther - Defrag or not?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 7:32:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I hear conflicting information. Anyone have any solid info on this?

More about : panther defrag

Anonymous
July 30, 2004 7:32:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:32:42 GMT, nospam@nospam.nospam suggested:
: I hear conflicting information. Anyone have any solid info on this?

My understanding is that with modern hardware and operating systems, the
benefit from defragmenting the drive is small enough that many consider
the wear and tear from a defrag to be worse than the slight performance
hit from a fragmented drive.

--
agreenbu @ nyx . net andrew michael greenburg
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 7:32:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Steve Jorgensen <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>I hear conflicting information. Anyone have any solid info on this?

IF you are using Berkeley filesystems, fragmentation just isn't a
serious issue.

IF you are using something goofy (like mounting an NT partition), it
might be.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Related resources
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 7:32:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

30 Jul 2004 12:08:21 -0400, kludge@panix.com suggested:
: Steve Jorgensen <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:
:>I hear conflicting information. Anyone have any solid info on this?
:
: IF you are using Berkeley filesystems, fragmentation just isn't a
: serious issue.
:
: IF you are using something goofy (like mounting an NT partition), it
: might be.

Well, most every OS X installation I've seen uses the HFS+ filesystem,
which is not a Berkeley-style fs. 10.3 extends it to a certain degree,
adding Journaling and on-the-fly optimizations, but I don't know if it
solves all of HFS's problems.

--
agreenbu @ nyx . net andrew michael greenburg
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 8:02:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<<
I hear conflicting information. Anyone have any solid info on this? >>


Panther has what is called "Journalling" which is supposed to "manage" files
somehow. You can format your drives to "journal" or not.
I'm told it reduces the need for defrgging, but since defragging doesn't take
days to do, i still do it every so often.....
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 8:11:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 30 Jul 2004 09:52:47 -0600, andrewunix <agreenbu@nyx.net> wrote:

>Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:32:42 GMT, nospam@nospam.nospam suggested:
>: I hear conflicting information. Anyone have any solid info on this?
>
>My understanding is that with modern hardware and operating systems, the
>benefit from defragmenting the drive is small enough that many consider
>the wear and tear from a defrag to be worse than the slight performance
>hit from a fragmented drive.

Nevertheless, Windows and Linux people report significant benefits from
defragging desktop systems (not servers), and particularly for DAWs. My
assumption was that the same rule would apply to a Mac, but one of the
no-defrag recommendations comes from an article on tuning a Mac for audio, and
specifically relates to Panther which, supposedly, does its own continuous
tuning of some sort.
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 8:11:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Steve Jorgensen wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2004 09:52:47 -0600, andrewunix <agreenbu@nyx.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:32:42 GMT, nospam@nospam.nospam suggested:
>>> I hear conflicting information. Anyone have any solid info on this?
>>
>> My understanding is that with modern hardware and operating systems, the
>> benefit from defragmenting the drive is small enough that many consider
>> the wear and tear from a defrag to be worse than the slight performance
>> hit from a fragmented drive.
>
>
> Nevertheless, Windows and Linux people report significant benefits from
> defragging desktop systems (not servers), and particularly for DAWs. My
> assumption was that the same rule would apply to a Mac, but one of the
> no-defrag recommendations comes from an article on tuning a Mac for audio, and
> specifically relates to Panther which, supposedly, does its own continuous
> tuning of some sort.


For long projects with high track counts, file interleaving drastically reduces head seeks. When you record such a project, the files are naturally interleaved as they are written. Defragging a drive with this kind of file structure will decrease performance and increase HD loads. <http://www.analogx.com/contents/download/audio/interlv....; addresses this issue for PC users.
!