Windows XP and Fragmentation Level

D

DarkCyber

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
1,273
Ok, I've known for some time that I have to really keep my Windows XP Pro pc's defragged alot. But I really didn't realize how much until I just upgraded one of my pc's that was running Windows 2000 Pro. I basically never had to defrag that pc and when I every did check it, it might only have a slightly fragmented level.

Since I've upgraded this pc to Windows XP the fragmentation is constant. I forgot to install Diskeeper on there and the fragmentation got so bad some apps wouldn't work correctly. Now Diskeeper is on there and scheculed to run everyday.

Now, why does Windows XP cause so much more fragmentation than Windows 2000?
 
If anything, XP should have just sightly less than 2000. How much RAM do you have? It's possible that when files save, they are trying to dodge a moving swap file. You may be able to reduce future fragmentation by setting up a constant-size swap-file. I recomend a constant size, even if you don't suspect it of causing fragmentation.

Another thing you could do to battle fragmentation is to set up a sched defrag every 24 hours.

You may also want to clean out the prefetch cache. You should not do it too often, but every now ant then shouldn't hurt.

If you've had a lot of errors, you may want to check the size of the Dr. Watson log file, to see if you need to delete it. Sometimes that file will keep growing until it's so big that it casues it's own problems.
 
I'd have to agree. It's been a long while since I've used 2000, but I thought one of the improvements to XP was to lessen dragmentation?
 
DarkCyber said:
Since I've upgraded this pc to Windows XP the fragmentation is constant. I forgot to install Diskeeper on there and the fragmentation got so bad some apps wouldn't work correctly.
Click to expand...

Could you amplify this statement? I've never seen an application fail to run due to disk fragmentation, and can't imagine why they wouldn't work correctly. At worst, they would run slowly, but would still run.
 
I run many pc's with Windows XP on them and it takes far less time for the hd to get fragmented than with Windows 2000. I usually run Diskeeper often on these pc's, at least once a week. But if I forget (which now I'm scheduling them daily) the fragmentation level even after a week gets very heavy. The pc I just upgraded from 2000 to XP is running the exact same software and nothing has really changed, other than the OS. With 2000, it hardly ever got fragmented at all.

I now have setup Diskeeper to run daily, just an oversight when I first upgraded to XP. I always run my paging files at a set size, usually double the amount of RAM in the pc.

As far as apps not working correctly when the hd gets really fragmented, happens all the time. On this the app I was using it simply would not open a file...would only give an error. I can always tell when a hd is to fragmented, because apps start doing crazy things like that...either will not open, will not load files or just run strangely. I've seen this over and over and over in Windows XP. If you have not, then you are truly blessed.


Again, I seen this strange behavior on numerous pc's running XP when the hd gets heavily fragmented.

One final note, I've noticed that the hd or partition with the paging file is the one that gets fragmented the most and quickest.

Maybe XP was suppose to be better dealing with fragmentation, but sure haven't noticed it on any of my pc's. But there are alot of things that we suppose to be better, but that's another book all by itself :D
 
DarkCyber said:
As far as apps not working correctly when the hd gets really fragmented, happens all the time. On this the app I was using it simply would not open a file...would only give an error. I can always tell when a hd is to fragmented, because apps start doing crazy things like that...either will not open, will not load files or just run strangely. I've seen this over and over and over in Windows XP. If you have not, then you are truly blessed.
Click to expand...

There are quite a few machines out there owned by non-technical folk that never heard of defragging the disk...and yet those machines still manage to run :p

Sure it helps a machine run faster. But outside of Diskkeeper's advertising, I've never seen it portrayed in such dire terms.
 
I've had my XP install for about 2 months, and aside from system restore, I have about a dozen fragmented files, most of which are downloaded zips/archives/files I hardly access and it really doesn't matter if they're fragmented. I don't know how you're getting such horrible fragmentation.
 
What purpose are you using that system for? I do some video editing and such and have set DK to run everyday, as i need a regular defrag. I guess you could review the situation once a thorough defrag is done, perhaps you could see how fast it gets cluttered again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top