|
Related Topics:
| Defrag on Upgrade? - I just did the OS 10.3.9 Software Update on an iBook G4 (seems to have gone fine). During the final stages of the update, the update window displayed a message volume "Mac HD": nn% complete Out of does that mean the updater..
Defrag drive ??? - I'm new with OSX, did we need to defrag sometime ? If so how ? Thx Dennis
Defrag and disk cleanup necessary under OS X? - I've heard that is not required any more since the of OS X. What is the reason behind this Or is it bunk? Thanks, -- Please, no "Go Google replies. I wouldn't ask a question here if I hadn't done that..
wanting a defrag utility - I'd like to several large which will result in moving several GB worth of files. I'm thinking my hard drive is alreay pretty and this will make it even more so. Has anyone had good with a defrag
Am fairly happy with TechTool Pro Defrag' - my move away from Norton I now run with TTP instead, their latest version 4.0.2 intended for OSX. TTP is a lot slower at defrag', and their graphic interface sucks compared to the detailed and defrag' display..
|
|
|
Next: hp Laserjet 5L
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jan 06, 2008
Posts: 27
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:26 am
Post subject: OS X: to defrag or not to
Archived from groups: comp>sys>mac>system (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Oct 03, 2004
Posts: 2981
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:14 am
Post subject: Re: OS X: to defrag or not to [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <uervj.13202$Ej5.9819@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
"CZ" <CZ.DeleteThis@no99spam.com> wrote:
> Interesting thread:
>
> http://www.macupdate.com/reviews.php?id=16819
The most interesting part is this:
"Full iMac defrag in approx 9 hours. Full external HD defrag in approx
six hours. I'll be using this regularly."
You have to wonder how long it would've taken just to make sure the
current backup was up-to-date (we all *do* keep backups, right?), wipe
the drive and restore. Would've had the same effect and should've taken
much less time.
Heck, in 9 hours even if you don't have a backup you could run to the
store, grab a new HD, download Carbon Copy Cloner and do a
copy/wipe/restore. And when you're done you'd have a drive that you
could use to start a better-than-nothing backup regimen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 70
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:21 am
Post subject: Re: OS X: to defrag or not to [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <uce-393737.08145522022008.DeleteThis@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce.DeleteThis@splook.com> wrote:
> In article <uervj.13202$Ej5.9819@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> "CZ" <CZ.DeleteThis@no99spam.com> wrote:
>
> > Interesting thread:
> >
> > http://www.macupdate.com/reviews.php?id=16819
>
> The most interesting part is this:
>
> "Full iMac defrag in approx 9 hours. Full external HD defrag in approx
> six hours. I'll be using this regularly."
>
> You have to wonder how long it would've taken just to make sure the
> current backup was up-to-date (we all *do* keep backups, right?), wipe
> the drive and restore. Would've had the same effect and should've taken
> much less time.
>
> Heck, in 9 hours even if you don't have a backup you could run to the
> store, grab a new HD, download Carbon Copy Cloner and do a
> copy/wipe/restore. And when you're done you'd have a drive that you
> could use to start a better-than-nothing backup regimen.
Since you mention backups, this comment was interesting:
"One thing i noticed when I ran iDefrag on a Leopard partition, it
caused Time Machine to do a complete backup of everything (because
iDefrag moves all your files I guess). In my case this was 100 GB,
assuming it does this every time you run iDefrag you can wipe out even a
large Terabyte drive pretty fast."
It sounds as though iDefrag is clobbering file and/or directory dates,
which is unfortunate.
--
Paul Sture
Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks:
http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~sture/ovms-bookmarks.html >> Stay informed about: OS X: to defrag or not to |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 14, 2003
Posts: 1150
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:21 am
Post subject: Re: OS X: to defrag or not to [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <paul.sture.nospam-0FEC2C.15094622022008.TakeThisOut@mac.sture.ch>, P.
Sture <paul.sture.nospam.TakeThisOut@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> Since you mention backups, this comment was interesting:
>
> "One thing i noticed when I ran iDefrag on a Leopard partition, it
> caused Time Machine to do a complete backup of everything (because
> iDefrag moves all your files I guess). In my case this was 100 GB,
> assuming it does this every time you run iDefrag you can wipe out even a
> large Terabyte drive pretty fast."
>
> It sounds as though iDefrag is clobbering file and/or directory dates,
> which is unfortunate.
my guess is that it's clobbering the metadata, not the dates. just
look at how long it took for superduper! to become leopard compatible.
and if that's true, that's a *really* good reason to not even consider
using it. >> Stay informed about: OS X: to defrag or not to |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 70
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:58 am
Post subject: Re: OS X: to defrag or not to [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <220220080645256380%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam DeleteThis @nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <paul.sture.nospam-0FEC2C.15094622022008 DeleteThis @mac.sture.ch>, P.
> Sture <paul.sture.nospam DeleteThis @hispeed.ch> wrote:
>
> > Since you mention backups, this comment was interesting:
> >
> > "One thing i noticed when I ran iDefrag on a Leopard partition, it
> > caused Time Machine to do a complete backup of everything (because
> > iDefrag moves all your files I guess). In my case this was 100 GB,
> > assuming it does this every time you run iDefrag you can wipe out even a
> > large Terabyte drive pretty fast."
> >
> > It sounds as though iDefrag is clobbering file and/or directory dates,
> > which is unfortunate.
>
> my guess is that it's clobbering the metadata, not the dates. just
> look at how long it took for superduper! to become leopard compatible.
> and if that's true, that's a *really* good reason to not even consider
> using it.
I don't know enough about OS X file system internals or Time Machine to
speculate further, but I have seen scenarios on other file systems where
huge incremental backups can be 'accidentally' triggered by file system
level software.
--
Paul Sture
Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks:
http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~sture/ovms-bookmarks.html >> Stay informed about: OS X: to defrag or not to |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 03, 2004
Posts: 2981
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:35 am
Post subject: Re: OS X: to defrag or not to [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <paul.sture.nospam-5AE5B1.05153126022008.DeleteThis@mac.sture.ch>,
"P. Sture" <paul.sture.nospam.DeleteThis@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> In article <220220080645256380%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <paul.sture.nospam-0FEC2C.15094622022008.DeleteThis@mac.sture.ch>, P.
> > Sture <paul.sture.nospam.DeleteThis@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> >
> > > Since you mention backups, this comment was interesting:
> > >
> > > "One thing i noticed when I ran iDefrag on a Leopard partition, it
> > > caused Time Machine to do a complete backup of everything (because
> > > iDefrag moves all your files I guess). In my case this was 100 GB,
> > > assuming it does this every time you run iDefrag you can wipe out even a
> > > large Terabyte drive pretty fast."
> > >
> > > It sounds as though iDefrag is clobbering file and/or directory dates,
> > > which is unfortunate.
> >
> > my guess is that it's clobbering the metadata, not the dates. just
> > look at how long it took for superduper! to become leopard compatible.
> > and if that's true, that's a *really* good reason to not even consider
> > using it.
>
> I don't know enough about OS X file system internals or Time Machine to
> speculate further, but I have seen scenarios on other file systems where
> huge incremental backups can be 'accidentally' triggered by file system
> level software.
Right. The broad situation is that whatever metadata the backup software
is using to detect changes - because exhaustive scans can be prohibitive
and because the metadata itself is often significant enough to back up -
is changed or improperly preserved. There's even, in many directory
structures, a flag that's reserved indicate whether the file has been
backed up. >> Stay informed about: OS X: to defrag or not to |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
