Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is The Defragment is Necessary for SSD

Last response: in Windows 8
Share
October 11, 2012 11:53:50 PM

How the Defragment of SSD

More about : defragment ssd

October 12, 2012 12:00:46 AM

You should not defragment SSD. They are not meant to be defragmented.
Related resources
October 12, 2012 10:32:32 PM

ssd hdd and flash drive should not be defragmented
October 12, 2012 10:53:26 PM

No, defrag just wears out SSDs, locations are governed by spreading use evenly, defrag accomplishes nothing while adding use cycles.
Trim, and proprietary garbage management take care of SSDs.
October 12, 2012 11:18:25 PM

Do not defrag an SSD.
It lowers its life span, never ever ever, defrag, an SSD.
October 13, 2012 6:51:35 AM

Kiowa789 said:
Do not defrag an SSD.
It lowers its life span, never ever ever, defrag, an SSD.


^This +1
October 13, 2012 3:25:26 PM

SSD's are a developing technology, what was true a year back may not be true today.
Generation 1 drives had a relatively short life due to Flash wear, the current generation drives are designed for 3-5 years of heavy use (way more than the average home user), it won't be long until they get to the point where SSD's have a longer life than a mechanical drive, I doubt running a Defrag even once a week would take more than a few days of life off a current generation SSD; also remember you can have fragmented drives and fragmented Files, a fragmented drive will make no difference to an SSD, but a fragmented File may require multiple reads to access.
October 14, 2012 8:45:29 PM

what about a hybrid drive like seagate xt750 ?
October 15, 2012 5:37:28 PM

like ssd its harmful
October 15, 2012 7:46:23 PM

Even if you were not concerned about lifespan, SSD actually perform better with fragmented data. They are designed to fragment the data.
October 15, 2012 8:03:18 PM

Defragment is not necessary for SSD -- some SSDs, like Samsung, come with an utility that allow you to clean temporary files, but it is not a defragmentation process in anyway.

When you make a fresh OS installatin on a SSD Windows 7 automatically deactivate the defragmentation service.

I have SSD and HDD, so sometimes I activate the defragmentation service in order to defrag my HDD, but I always make sure to do it just for the HDD, by selecting this option.
October 15, 2012 8:29:24 PM

twelve25 said:
Even if you were not concerned about lifespan, SSD actually perform better with fragmented data. They are designed to fragment the data.


Not really true.. over time by writing and erasing. Writing "pages" erasing "blocks" ssds can be become fragmented. Just like an hdd this causes it to lose performance. (not as bad as u would notice on an hdd because it doesn't have moving parts) I believe there's actually two types of fragmentation a ssd can have. Hence... Why there is something called Trim. It's designed to work a lot like a defrag would and clean up the ssd.

But regardless. cheap ssds have at least a 10,000 write cycle per block. It's very difficult to wear one out due to write cycles. Something else will destroy it first.

October 15, 2012 9:05:49 PM

"Fragmented" in hard drive terms means data that is spread around the disk and not together in one chunk. With an SSD, if parts of your file are spread out, that means the drive can more efficiently use the memory channels by reading from multiple flash modules at once. So, yes, it does make the drive perform better to have the data spread around the disk. There is actually a slight detriment to having the file all together on a single flash location.

TRIM helps prevent situations where you will have to do a delete before you can write, but that is not the same as fragmentation.


10,000 write cycles is a lot for normal use, but a defragmenter that is set to run daily could do multiple writes for each block it defrags as it moves files around so they are at contiguous addresses. Multiple writes x 365 days a year x a few years could mean a good chunk of your drive is worn. Some defragmenters can even be set to run everytime the computer is idle.

October 15, 2012 9:16:26 PM

these guys saying fragmented ssds run slower clearly dont understand fragmentations, hard drives, ssds, and why fragmented hard drives slow down while fragmented ssds do not.

think about it for a second would you. if you have a fragmented hard drive the head that reads the disc has to skip around all over the place to retrieve data instead of getting it all in one pass. with an ssd, with there being no read head and all chunks of the drive being equally accessible there is no difference between the data being fragmented or not.
October 15, 2012 9:21:51 PM

Please don't defrag an SSD. I hear that in Linux you don't even have to defrag an HDD!
October 15, 2012 10:37:47 PM

Defrgging a hybrid drive like the xt, is sometimes anecessary evil. The ssd cache itself is reset in the process and needs to be rebuild therafter. With a hyrbid his means rebooting several times again and reloading the wanted programs at least 3-7 times to get recached. Depending on how fragmented your drive is, it might still create a favorable result to defrag once in a while. Still I wouldnt recommend defragmenting hybrid dives every week. Once a month though should suffice.
October 15, 2012 11:44:46 PM

Ok first off... I'd like to say that never did i say to defrag an ssd.

Second thank you neon I know that hdds are mechanical and moving parts. Yes i understand why they delay with fragmentation read/write times because of physical moving parts. Where an ssd will not be affected. HOWEVER... and im going to quote from an article that i'll link. So that it can be explained correctly.

"It is a misconception that SSD does not suffer from file system fragmentation. A large part of system slowdown can indeed be attributed to the read/write head spending too much mechanical seek time for highly fragmented files in HDD, and SSD does reduce that to zero. While this is a significant improvement, mechanical seek time only makes up a part of total access time, or I/O time, of any single input/output request made to the disk. I/O time is the time a computer system takes to complete a request cycle all the way from application, OS and driver down to disk hardware, memory cells, and then back again."


"To put it another way, the misconception that SSD does not suffer from file fragmentation derives from seeing the performance degradation as a problem of the storage device alone, a problem of whether there is mechanical moving part or not, but not as a problem concerning the system as a whole. The question at issue here is I/O time, not seek time."

This is how fragmentation affects the spead of an ssd. I guess i should of just linked this in the beginning. Is it going to be the same noticeable delay an hdd will have? NO. It's simply a faster better technology. But over time tests have proven that fragmentation can slow an ssd down by 50% (talking the span of about 5-10 years)

http://www.rtcmagazine.com/articles/view/101053
October 21, 2012 3:41:44 PM

Nice bit or marketing that article appears to be.... I see no reason to trust an article written by a company who's only interest in writing said article is increased sales through increased wear rates.
October 22, 2012 3:36:28 PM

lol take it for whatever you want.
October 23, 2012 3:27:40 AM

I just call it what it is.... The software increases wear rate through additional, unnecessary writes (which are limited). Exactly why would you intentionally run software that shortens the life of your SSD? Especially when the companies involved in making the SSD say that such process is detrimental to the drive.
October 23, 2012 2:46:23 PM

sykozis said:
I just call it what it is.... The software increases wear rate through additional, unnecessary writes (which are limited). Exactly why would you intentionally run software that shortens the life of your SSD? Especially when the companies involved in making the SSD say that such process is detrimental to the drive.


Thats kind of like the same argument as overclocking.. Does it over time lower the lifespan of your proc? Sure it does. Run something faster and hotter it'll be used up quicker. But by the time that happens it will be obsolete and most likely replaced. It would take a massive amount of writes to wear an ssd out. they have come a long way. A very very cheap one has at least 10,000. That would be something like 2.6 writes per day on EVERY block for ten years to hit that. It's just an obscene amount for a normal day to day user... Regardless.. The article wasn't meant to talk about the lifespan of an ssd. It was merely to prove that file fragmentation does slow an ssd down.
October 23, 2012 3:45:51 PM

so people say, but ive never in all my years seen a processor wear out
October 23, 2012 4:00:07 PM

neon neophyte said:
so people say, but ive never in all my years seen a processor wear out


lol exactly. Thats why im saying it's more likely for an ssd to fail for some other reason long before you wear it out :p . But n e who I think we both understand where each other are coming from.
!