i wonder if i keep format or defrag my HDD will be spoil faster? i use nLite and vLite alot and now probably i need to learn to use DISM. so if i keep testing my "builds" i need to format alot. for maintenance, i defrag. does all this spoil the HDD?

for fairness. say i use my computer for my work for xxhrs vs i defrag/format/reinstall for xxhrs

will the later spoil the HDD faster? since its doing read/writes for a larger part of the HDD than normal work which probably reads/writes on some parts only.

Using it more strenuously will make the mechanical parts wear out faster. So essentially yes.

Using "quick format" doesn't read/write much at all.

I'm interested in this too. For example I use Diskeeper with Automatic Defrag option, so it defrags my disk every time processor is idle. I'm wondering how much this affects my HDD's?

Cheers

I think this has been discussed before on this forum (whether defrag hurts drive)

I would say while testing an ISO, once installed do not defrag every time you test one. And use quick format when installing windows. Remember that a defrag program will only defrag fragmented files (not the whole drive) and once defragged it can be easier on your drive as it takes less time to access files so in the long run is better.

I think this has been discussed before on this forum (whether defrag hurts drive)

Here, with opposite conclusions.

As ANYTHING in life, doing it can be right, OVERdoing it is always wrong.

jaclaz

thanks all.

I would say while testing an ISO, once installed do not defrag every time you test one. And use quick format when installing windows.

actually i dont mean when testing i defrag it also. just that sometimes when somethings fail. i may try to fix it in a new iso build and install it again.

btw, will defragging b4 i create a image with say Acronis help in defragmentation? as in after the image is restored will be be defragmented or fragmented? what abt with imagex or some other imaging tool?

thanks all.

I would say while testing an ISO, once installed do not defrag every time you test one. And use quick format when installing windows.

actually i dont mean when testing i defrag it also. just that sometimes when somethings fail. i may try to fix it in a new iso build and install it again.

btw, will defragging b4 i create a image with say Acronis help in defragmentation? as in after the image is restored will be be defragmented or fragmented? what abt with imagex or some other imaging tool?

I am not sure about that. Since all you would be doing is reimaging a drive I do not think it would then be fragmented. Any ideas people?

I used to work at a college and one day we had no work to do. So my co-worker took a Hard Drive and decided to just format it all day. At first it was fine, but soon it started getting bad sectors. After 10 hours (yes he was kinda a weird guy) he got the bad sectors up to 41%. The only thing was that this was back in 2001 and HDD technology made have improved its resiliency (sic).

Hehe. Anyway, your co-workers test doesn't show or prove much. It might as well have been a flaky drive. Such tests should be done on a much larger scale to get any 'semi-decent' test results.

On topic. Fragmented drives stress hardware too, since the drive heads have to move all over the place to gather data from it. But like jaclaz said, overdoing defragmentations isn't that good in the long run either.

On topic. Fragmented drives stress hardware too, since the drive heads have to move all over the place to gather data from it. But like jaclaz said, overdoing defragmentations isn't that good in the long run either.

Exactly. You have to find the perfect time to defrag. Anybody know at what percentage of drive fragmentation should the drive be defragmentated?

Exactly. You have to find the perfect time to defrag. Anybody know at what percentage of drive fragmentation should the drive be defragmentated?

There is NO sense in using the percentage as an indicator of the need of defragmenting (within limits).

It depends also (and with more relevance) to the frequency with which a file is accessed.

Let's make an example:

1. you install a system from scratch, fragmentation will be at it's lowest possible level
   
2. then you ADD applications or data, fragmentation of the ADDED application or data will be anyway 0 (zero) BUT any pre-existing file updated/replaced (and enlarged) during the process will become fragmented, including the Registry
   
3. then, in the course of normal usage of the PC, you DELETE some files
   
4. then, in the course of normal usage of the PC, you CREATE new files
   
5. then, in the course of normal usage of the PC, you ADD informations to existing files
   

It is rather obvious that if you have a rather large and heavy fragmented data file, say an AutoCAD drawing, which you access once every few weeks in order to print a copy of it, the influence of it's fragmentation will be totally negligible, same goes for a .avi or .wmv file that you watch once or two in a lifetime.

But when you have a frequently accessed file, like the Registry (which is often fragmented), if you use a "dynamic" swap file placed in the SAME partition you have your system, in case of major updates from MS when system files are updated, the impact of fragmentation can be of relevance.

Besides sysinternals contig.exe a file-based (as opposed to disk-based) defragmentation utility exists:

http://wincontig.mdtzone.it/en/index.htm

that can help in analyzing (and solve ) "partial" defragmentation problems through a nice, easy GUI.

jaclaz

If you perform a full format then the write head magnetize all the data bits on the platters.So if they where not properly magnetized it can restore them.

This means that it's good idea to perform a full format especially on a new or old drive.

If you perform a full format then the write head magnetize all the data bits on the platters.So if they where not properly magnetized it can restore them.

I don't now what you mean by "magnetize the data bits" but formatting (as we are discussing) will not restore anything. At best, sectors will be marked as unreadable (thus "bad") if any.