Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: executive.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to executive.com.

Comments · 6

  1. Re:Nothing new really by DeKO · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft's New Mantra - It Just Works

    Windows XP auto-defragment as well (if enabled).

    Actually, even Win98 has auto-defragmentation, using a 3rd-party app. Microsoft did a good deal when they bought Diskeeper and shipped it with WinXP.

  2. Here's what I did by steeef · · Score: 1 · on Comprehensive Guide to the Windows Paging File
    Got the trial version of DisKeeper (which is probably worth a purchase anyway, as it seems to perform better than Windows' defragger). Alternately you can get something like PageDefrag for free. Both of these will defrag your paging file, but DisKeeper allows you to place it at the beginning of a partition, allowing for faster access.

    I first deleted all paging files and rebooted. This allowed me to start fresh. I followed these steps to setup my new paging file:
    • Figure out a permanent size for your paging file. I recommend having 2gigs of memory (RAM + paging) for Windows XP. I have 1 gig of RAM, so I figured 1024MB was good (as the article says, you should probably determine what your maximum load is and then choose a size). Allowing the paging file to grow and shrink will always introduce fragmentation.
    • If possible, put the paging file on a separate disk than the one Windows is installed on. This will reduce head movement on the system disk and decrease access time for the paging file.
    • If you're using DisKeeper, have it place the paging file at the beginning of the partition. Again, this should reduce access time.


    I followed the instructions in the XP Tweaking Companion guide. It's a nice all-around guide for optimizing XP.
  3. Re:Defrag first, man. by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1 · on Comprehensive Guide to the Windows Paging File

    > That's probably the best way to tune the page file. There, I saved you from having to take the time to read the article.

    -nod- Although it costs, DiskKeeper Pro can do this directly without all the hoops. I think it's
    worth the money, and they have a free time-limited demo.

  4. Reasons *not* to use NTFS by Philbert+Desenex · · Score: 1 · on NTFS vs. FAT32
    NTFS isn't the cure-all that MSFT makes it out to be. It has some problems.
    1. It allocates disk sectors in extents - therefore, it absolutely requires defragmentation. See Executive Software's Diskeeper benchmarks, and their white paper. You don't have to believe Executive Software, and there may be good reasons for disbelieving them. Think about it: every other filesystem that has had extent-based allocation ended up with defragementers: DEC's ODS-2 (VMS), SGI's EFS (Irix) are two examples of radically different filesystems by radically different vendors, yet each required defragmentation. Fortunately, SGI provided such a good one, that 3rd party vendors didn't even bother.
    2. Each file has multiple "streams". These could very obviously promote security problems. Alternatively, see this for another example. Microsoft itself has had a bunch of problems with NTFS streams, including bizarre interactions with IIS.
    3. It's broken by design. Any fool can extend the MFT and use up all of a partition's disk space.
    If you insist on using a closed system, you don't get that many choices. For a lot of filesytem choices, I'd reccommend NetBSD.
  5. Reasons *not* to use NTFS by Philbert+Desenex · · Score: 1 · on NTFS vs. FAT32
    NTFS isn't the cure-all that MSFT makes it out to be. It has some problems.
    1. It allocates disk sectors in extents - therefore, it absolutely requires defragmentation. See Executive Software's Diskeeper benchmarks, and their white paper. You don't have to believe Executive Software, and there may be good reasons for disbelieving them. Think about it: every other filesystem that has had extent-based allocation ended up with defragementers: DEC's ODS-2 (VMS), SGI's EFS (Irix) are two examples of radically different filesystems by radically different vendors, yet each required defragmentation. Fortunately, SGI provided such a good one, that 3rd party vendors didn't even bother.
    2. Each file has multiple "streams". These could very obviously promote security problems. Alternatively, see this for another example. Microsoft itself has had a bunch of problems with NTFS streams, including bizarre interactions with IIS.
    3. It's broken by design. Any fool can extend the MFT and use up all of a partition's disk space.
    If you insist on using a closed system, you don't get that many choices. For a lot of filesytem choices, I'd reccommend NetBSD.
  6. Re:People say... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2 · on Merits Of The Different Journaling Filesystems?

    > What they don't realise is that neither NT actually has a Journal File System

    Bullocks. NTFS is a Journaling File System, albeit a crippled one, due to the fact that NTFS only journals META-DATA, not DATA.

    http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/papers/xfs_white/x fs_white_paper.html

    http://www.executive.com/whats-new/whitepaper.asp

    --
    "We don't need no stinkin Karma" - 3 Amigos