Vista - Running disk defragmenter again still takes long

I ran Disk Defragmenter earlier today and it took 7 hours (on a 2.66 GHz
computer with a 80 GB hard drive). I re-booted and ran it again, and it has
been running for an hour. On Windows XP, Disk Defragmenter would run for
very little time on the second run with the same computer. Is some extra
service being provided here, such as moving around files to keep the bits
from decaying? Or is it just inefficient?

I agree with others that not having displays of progress is a bother - if
some people found the display burdensome it could be off by default.

The number of file extents (that is the number of files + extra extents, see
defrag /v) will affect how much time your defrag takes.
Also the number of free space extents and the size of each will affect
defrag time.
Lastly, Defrag runs at low priority, so if you are doing something else on
the computer defrag will yield to whatever else is happening.

The 80GB hard drive size is not the most important

For more info see
http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/arc...r/default.aspx
and our faq.

-Victoria


"Mickey Segal" <not_monitored@example.com> wrote in message
news:O5wXa8wRHHA.3996@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I ran Disk Defragmenter earlier today and it took 7 hours (on a 2.66 GHz
>computer with a 80 GB hard drive). I re-booted and ran it again, and it
>has been running for an hour. On Windows XP, Disk Defragmenter would run
>for very little time on the second run with the same computer. Is some
>extra service being provided here, such as moving around files to keep the
>bits from decaying? Or is it just inefficient?
>
> I agree with others that not having displays of progress is a bother - if
> some people found the display burdensome it could be off by default.
>

No one was using the computer, but I don't know whether some other service
was running such as file indexing. During the same day the amount of free
space reported dropped and then increased by 7 GB, and the System Volume
Information folder changed from reporting 20 GB to reporting empty.

"Victoria House [MSFT]" <vhouse@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2DDF7403-7DE7-4AB8-9940-5ECA8900652B@microsoft.com...
> The number of file extents (that is the number of files + extra extents,
> see defrag /v) will affect how much time your defrag takes.
> Also the number of free space extents and the size of each will affect
> defrag time.
> Lastly, Defrag runs at low priority, so if you are doing something else on
> the computer defrag will yield to whatever else is happening.
>
> The 80GB hard drive size is not the most important
>
> For more info see
> http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/arc...r/default.aspx
> and our faq.

Mickey Segal wrote:

> I agree with others that not having displays of progress is a bother
> - if some people found the display burdensome it could be off by
> default.

It's frustrating but apparently the progress indicator that was shown in
older versions of Windows was actually lying to us anyway. And it's worth
remembering that Windows users are the only group of operating system
consumers that obsess over watching their disks defragment, which says
something about either us, the OS or both, and I suspect what it says is
nothing good.

I know it's hard to break old habits but if you want to watch an animation
that has nothing to do with what is actually taking place on your disk
during the defragger's run, I personally suggest old futurama or simpsons
cartoons.

--
Robert Moir
http://www.rhymeswithgeek.com

"Victoria House [MSFT]" wrote:

> The number of file extents (that is the number of files + extra extents, see
> defrag /v) will affect how much time your defrag takes.
> Also the number of free space extents and the size of each will affect
> defrag time.
> Lastly, Defrag runs at low priority, so if you are doing something else on
> the computer defrag will yield to whatever else is happening.
>
> The 80GB hard drive size is not the most important
>
> For more info see
> http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/arc...r/default.aspx
> and our faq.
>
> -Victoria
>
>
> "Mickey Segal" <not_monitored@example.com> wrote in message
> news:O5wXa8wRHHA.3996@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >I ran Disk Defragmenter earlier today and it took 7 hours (on a 2.66 GHz
> >computer with a 80 GB hard drive). I re-booted and ran it again, and it
> >has been running for an hour. On Windows XP, Disk Defragmenter would run
> >for very little time on the second run with the same computer. Is some
> >extra service being provided here, such as moving around files to keep the
> >bits from decaying? Or is it just inefficient?
> >
> > I agree with others that not having displays of progress is a bother - if
> > some people found the display burdensome it could be off by default.
> >
>