DrPizza

What does it do that NT's own FAT lazy-write caching doesn't do? What does it do that NT's own NTFS journelled lazy-write (meta-data is written immediately, data is lazy-written) caching doesn't do?

Look at this hilarious IRC flood attack. Does that DNS name look familiar to anyone? Syracuse, NY? Why, it's our good friend APK! (slightly edited to fit inside the 10,000 character limit; there was about 30 kbytes of this crap) -:- QEDEBHCYH [~QEDEBHCYH@syr-66-67-71-148.twcny.rr.com] has joined #arstechnica <QEDEBHCYH> SUDHTKTKUCJUQBTMFTOTXGAMAEHIBKZDFKAWTIWNTYMHMRSMFGEECCUJZCAAWCVYHDPHHFMUIKLCMSUTENKXZQHMIKTWROXPZMIQVTWYUXBBHLSXKBADBIBUWXUEVCXRGADQQRZVQUAJQZXIQSPGYDOFVKFBOFRQCIJUDUWK MOQSLJRYMYAUPKKQDWEWURERIDDGOIKQMATYFEHKDMMTZLJABVPXDZTRECZWCCEICEMBVFMMMYJHJUFMEDDUGZXGMSNSICFPINRDLLDOJBJYZNOVCIHDCLMXQCUGKRYRAMECK -:- QEDEBHCYH is now known as EMGDWBEPE <EMGDWBEPE> SFUYPEHWCCJWAFRXPPQAZIVTEOOYINUAKBNURCVDXHJVREGFMDOAYASHDCBKZHHJVBXMOBMGROUKMHVURYANWUYNTKBYSRAOZPRNEFCJJALWNTGMHKEWSTLKLKATLFCHEHKHHYNLZHJKAWOOHWCWDOWTXPTPEJMMXVUESKJS RKKJEUYARXSYBNMXZTROZRGECTEFDFALZABSDNVXXTDSQGXNORQBKVTSJZOPUVWTMZTYYBAZNPIRFIMASMDZRHUQUJBWGCJZQZIUHSZJKJKOWOLEVEHFKBRQWMYERKDIFCYMI -:- EMGDWBEPE is now known as DGYSDPYVG <DGYSDPYVG> EEOPUOTLWPPLJQHMMSLSVNKQVGYQZOYVIAWVTGLOIHMGTJDHPSKARQDJEEDSYIADQEYTDLIDTUCTUWBSYZMIRWBCWOZAUTVRFRJJBLIHHFDAXAZYKAPYYDDFNHDKIUJJXHHJRNHCMVVKFAEZAUXOJXSBCYRKYVVRZTKREJOA YWIFMPWZYZDCTHIZWUDFEFTBFQZXTDGJBZGKPAFGGOTUGPNODWJNVVVHQLAZEPQNNXWQHDFENHWWDYYROFCMKCMEYNWCUIECERNTCPVIMKGWETJOJRBCARQPGWUSIUSVYMKZN -:- DGYSDPYVG is now known as BSSAQDHZP <BSSAQDHZP> QUTZWTFLUKZVJILCSCJDLNAYRVFAUNMJQBNCTTWVUUVMPLPESGUPPCGQTIJCBSWANHEXMCTDATRLHREDCUKMCGYLJPYGIOJXYBGLMRNWLVWLYEPKGWGLIIKLMNUXYDXDZAHJKSHCRQPFIOHWRYEPIKLQFXVNFJLCKPOMWTBF WGGYJNISALORMMKZDMZFRQGRUHOYAIQYTPBLIIXPZSBOYOBYGXAXBVYAFYOGANIUUBDKLXLCSFQTGGKMGQAPVWWNJGKRDUSZNNJHRLSTKNPPBMTNAGCXWPXJDKVUDNBJVVVZG -:- BSSAQDHZP is now known as EXVLATKEU <EXVLATKEU> QEXJRICDSTSWYQFXEUQRGUIDZGNSDMYKZWTIFDRVVHHUQOFLCAWXXCZHQFIBZEVVUZICZSAQHIUZSWTJQNWWHKHPIJLQLHNXBWBJOCGDGDLXODHKKZSVBJFTINOTWWESSQGHTRIEICFWTOENZCWUTLANVBVAZJGXIILCMMGR CMXQYODJAOCPTJKWCMJJMZCTDWVGQRMTBEJLCKTGBLHPAADEHYQIWQSGDJMQUDMHOFFZNFLLVAIWXXXBLMYLKNYPRGCWMMXQBGCVGNKUMTKHIRYJBINXQBIAPIODTHVXYDOFY -:- EXVLATKEU is now known as TZVEHFIUI -:- OKNIMPAXX [~OKNIMPAXX@syr-66-67-71-148.twcny.rr.com] has joined #arstechnica -:- OKNIMPAXX is now known as LEMCUGBJR -:- LEMCUGBJR is now known as CMGGXCOYV -:- CMGGXCOYV is now known as VPTAWYGTE -:- VPTAWYGTE is now known as YYJYOWLMY -:- YYJYOWLMY is now known as HHRMOKTZL -:- XZEULVZMR [~XZEULVZMR@syr-66-67-71-148.twcny.rr.com] has joined #arstechnica -:- XZEULVZMR is now known as ZUUJEFNGG -:- ZUUJEFNGG is now known as MADZSUXQD -:- MADZSUXQD is now known as LRZVIQLUO -:- LRZVIQLUO is now known as CLKUANMHR -:- CLKUANMHR is now known as OMDOXBNKH -:- UPATIXPGN [~UPATIXPGN@syr-66-67-71-148.twcny.rr.com] has joined #arstechnica -:- UPATIXPGN is now known as ANEVPDKDF -:- ANEVPDKDF is now known as LDCDKUQSM -:- LDCDKUQSM is now known as OVNGRIPEB -:- OVNGRIPEB is now known as HFUNSMAFR -:- HFUNSMAFR is now known as HLDQVROCI -:- RSWMJLZNT [~RSWMJLZNT@syr-66-67-71-148.twcny.rr.com] has joined #arstechnica -:- RSWMJLZNT is now known as DNHOVNNCY -:- DNHOVNNCY is now known as IMUEVCGOP -:- IMUEVCGOP is now known as NJIEMXJOD -:- NJIEMXJOD is now known as CQVFAVASY -:- CQVFAVASY is now known as AADGKSRQP -:- CIYXMQWWT [~CIYXMQWWT@syr-66-67-71-148.twcny.rr.com] has joined #arstechnica -:- CIYXMQWWT is now known as PBBUCIAHT -:- PBBUCIAHT is now known as DZWAJPYIJ -:- DZWAJPYIJ is now known as IHZLXIRYN -:- IHZLXIRYN is now known as FARYGXQRH -:- FARYGXQRH is now known as MNGQPFOPP -:- ACLENWAXA [~ACLENWAXA@syr-66-67-71-148.twcny.rr.com] has joined #arstechnica -:- ACLENWAXA is now known as IQLYKUNNO -:- IQLYKUNNO is now known as AOQHHEHRR -:- AOQHHEHRR is now known as TQKJMTYVD -:- TQKJMTYVD is now known as ITNYALIUD -:- ITNYALIUD is now known as OLQKSSIHQ [Rompbot(intarweb@dialup-63.210.223.113.Dial1.NewYork1.Level3.net)] WAKE UP <TZVEHFIUI> BDCHBILFAJMGTGBDAWRCKYGGJSEJXTAIEFANWUUEJKEDXUBFYDKPFHSDDIYTIPEFJERYHBMGTFHMSAAUPDHCPCQMDJCJRHZOKIHSCXTSDZBTKEDBBGJUASGHSHLPUXENUTNOTQFBNYBVNICBQDKODGYMEBYQMXTZMIQCDQGK JHEHDBVDFZXKIUZCRRTGNZEMOJOBIEQRVUIMPTTAKEHXJTKUVLWWNOMXUBQWIWUREXUBWGLGNNSVDQWCYYPIBEFRBADSKFLUWJDOWFIGROZXSHRSLSKLBXXMLBJUMOKAHEAQJ <DrPony> oh <HHRMOKTZL> FZTDIQNNTCBHZTIALPTIRAAQXGUZOHFCEHEUWFNMUAIOWQHGNESXNTCZKVGDVYXTCTKIHRUOHHDEHAKGUGWTTVZOTEAANQWTRQJUZTDBNZVHDUZLAIVEKMSJJWRECRPAXBXGAZPDDDINQRPCKYCJWGDSNXGUJYOAQRCCDEXS RYKZKSVMJMFWNWCWBGGXJXZRSMOYRRQWFQMSCKDCJNELWAOGIIDBOLNSTTJMUBHMSSQOZMNGPEBGODYOTEXHDNHPAZYYFLJWNESWRQAZFNZJBHUVABIZNCVRKPMGJFOVGTHAF <TZVEHFIUI> BSQGQCTQBYVSQDWERATDGCXQEAGCCKPVXIRYQSTUULWALGCPDYEWJBLDUQVZTENCUMEGXMNWWCCOQHBTWSCGRPPCBQFYFTCZFNFGHZXGYJHAARBAEJHMSFGZHZBAUWGCPAGRHSCENFBVGDOFAATOLVSOTSITUZLHKDUSSAEY GXRFEGWGBEBZTDZXIQYMJZKTVNFVKMDKJERVMVXHXAVKOKOKINJXAMYSZLXFYOOUETDHJOVUPNLVFDRKKWYIXRCQSQUMUPTPRVKWEPCXTQIGPAANDPLTIRGVENHUXVAXCVMBE <DrPony> heya apk you stupid cunt. .----------------------------------------- -- - | TZVEHFIUI (~QEDEBHCYH@syr-66-67-71-148.twcny.rr.com) (Internic Commercial) : ircname : QEDEBHCYH | channels : #arstechnica | server : isis.arstechnica.com (Ars OpenIRC) : idle : 0 hours 0 mins 0 secs (signon: Sat Oct 20 11:45:58 2001) <HHRMOKTZL> OXHARTSVMESZTIYELJFRUBYXUBPKXHGQWKIAANFNGIEKNPKWYXZXCSKJZHYYGOJFTQKCQEHMCENEMFFRBNCBKLMCMQJXCLZHNPBKYOSCJVQCMDOPJTZRFNTRUSMXXDIGQQVVGCNGWNBZSCQVOHDOUVDGUBNAXTDZUNDJAAUM HTEBRFXHIRJKHIKQWOOVZPNWWEBEADRPNFAJYRADLPURTJGVBYKYIEVCXIMOPWBWEGXQAZHVLUDZRSQRCEIWDOOPJSUPNCSPPGRIDUGVECFKRKDKPBJFRLHETFHGGIISJILSN -:- mode/#arstechnica [+b *!*@syr-66-67-71-148.twcny.rr.com] by DrPony -:- TZVEHFIUI was kicked off #arstechnica by DrPony (The heart has reasons of which reason has no knowledge.) -:- MNGQPFOPP was kicked off #arstechnica by DrPony (By thy words thou shalt be condemned.) <HHRMOKTZL> TAVVXSWBXJTHQFCJEDYKOCWYIYZIKTDZUPSBPJFFJLXABHFQJFWXEULPQEDBAEVJSMVJUYPXKEYBCRLPSDIDSQDYVQHGJFYAPEKIUZSCJATGVGWGTSLABLFRXXNIIWPKRUNIGFOWVEQHNCUNXMYVFPIIGEZRAJZTWWXVVQZE UOWYZQKQJYYFNKANYVXQJKUECSNFDVUAWWJNMSQOOSUQPIJCSAYPOUQDVYKOXOKHVJPBCTWABVMKOJBYZIFFDHLRLEVMCCNZWYPUFULYYJWOHMTDWBYIICIGTPLRCAJXLOBAY <OMDOXBNKH> GFUWOAPTIXYJCBHYPYEYJNLBBFRTXWLBBQIYTHRPQUGSHLGITQQZZVDRCNYZYRZCZFCLIBZIPUCXTOFRPNENPMCIZFXHFXXCLYEEXEKPFNDJAHDWEBNUKUBTZTHSFPVWKVXVYOEETNMUYWLZSGERMVLVMPZAPNGCRUSMYHQU XABNGDVZTEFFLVBLWFSYLHCJDTXTWIZZBUBCAYCJQTEKWEPOSHRRFHQTURYBUWFYHSTSTLEONSERZBHDZGYDDTTZAPWCMXZRJURZDSKVGVUUMKWQMHLEWHKHAVFOVYOMWVVMU <HLDQVROCI> RNOZIKGNWLDIWSLMSSMLNDOXVEARKLQWRWMJSZZMILUQUDAPXYXPFOCDZZICKGWFJULHVGYDTCVBYXCKNHEFUSFRKHRRXFOGKNKBHRYNTAWUAOJQLCISBILPSXTNEPBGXCEOZPAPTPHKTLCARAUTQSZEBYHMZCOVKCRWDXYE YMTURYJRHPOFWXIHJQPKUGJGFTLTTLNAQOJJASUMDLUXORQZGICQUJAQARDGWREQDLTUFEEIDAWLGKEPWCDMJHYIYYQYCBZHGSKWHUMFYGXAIUCZHHUHXOIFHUOBHBEOXNHSH -:- OLQKSSIHQ was kicked off #arstechnica by DrPony (Yo momma so ugly they pay her to put her clothes on in strip joints.) -:- OMDOXBNKH was kicked off #arstechnica by DrPony (Yo momma's so ugly, she looked out from the car and got arrested for mooning!) <HHRMOKTZL> BAWCOVQYTKPVRMXSQIJMOZDNNNKNAHJKVJBSKBRZQWCHRXWIUZTAFCKBPTKMXFBZQRGFBAVURJXFLVJRJDTROURRRXDZFOEEHJBJADYLEZLXRBNBCMXPFJWCOCJCTKTVCIOFCFLZSVXQFPKRFZUJCKOESDMXVLWTPBWBBWKF NCZEVIQTXBLBXHOHBIADJSBYNNYXEOBRYJTCXIVTBNSXZHAXVUWALCXYJJMRECRVGPRPZISDLWVFZHYICPVPNBWZWZGZPKKTJMRRFEMJUZKOQZPIODHDTDHVXKCJRHHFIJCVJ <AADGKSRQP> IXRDFRIOTFZRJBSHVNUTBSAGEUPIXYZTEQRZSWCPKCOZCBRBJBZFCEOJHNXIQXUJKKYKAAIRXNWDEGCZWERQPPREGPYVOQSOGQIJXGOAAJEAETBWGGGIRABYTIUHCYFKRLFTQCUQZMVSPDUXOUPJMZETRTKNOYQKESVJPBUK XUSSSXUGABSAPMVVHQWADEBMLIIQDWZEJNJDSKXSUGGGMYTNDWOUKVQLQZBURAKMDMUZNHVRVKLBCDQJXHUHXGYWEYNMDKTMWHKABAVXWWDYOOAIEUTTJSBUOIBMSZCYZCCFH <Rompbot> rol <AADGKSRQP> LNZCHYWSAQXOJKISAYMVNDUAIUTPPCVIRCPFELFFDWRNHQGBFOEPZMWJLCAVYRTPRMQEQMFOGVTSAKJHZVKTYLMIVOZBUGFOUNMVLPYVWCGCQAQBPRQOSOHMBRNRTHESGONJARZJBLAAVIPCPLGNFJXIBMOOSUEVVHISWOTL VJYOUOGTBJLYHQBDPZLFFMYCGAJDQKKMUWEBNFHFACGJINZGKUBKYHJTXTGZKFMNBSJBAJOZCTOZISMBMNLHHELMIKDZICWTDNYCKEDJEEKCBZDFAKDDBCFWKFRYHTBZSAFTY <HHRMOKTZL> QFSKQUSAIKRRSRTMADXDNUHQICOTGWNJNWNIKEBUYRRANJOVYCDZUJEPGHJIFQRFPRXHXQSTJXBXGZGVYXVSNTUJEGPRGUSVOUIZRBVFWTCLFMDZNLONDTFAPELYWTECDGDHAOIHWIIKVJSCGXGOFYLWAMLISHUITHKBFCFC PZVVZZXWRRZINPGFIEXFINABDMZNVHYUPZHSDZKLKIDNARKQJBEBSAJXZVJVNMIUTDHJYUOLBIRXDXXBRYMEDJFYLFKBVKACGULCNORGMCEUWKZIFKBAYXOCZNKJNECUTFDDM -:- HLDQVROCI was kicked off #arstechnica by DrPony (No man is good enough to govern another man without the other's consent.) -:- AADGKSRQP was kicked off #arstechnica by DrPony (He laughs best that laughs last.) <HHRMOKTZL> DLLMYZXXZJIGUZFNCCMOBOUKEZJOOTPACXZMALOKBNSDAWLALGXVLMMDXSODREALJIAPFGZMGIVZGXZFJSTTJSSNNHTAGYTVRVKKTNDLABROAZIKBBRBAPTROFBEVUOMLMMBFFNTOJQDSPLVYNTTJSJSQPDRSQAMATKCMVPG ZQFAKDATMGTLOFIXNBBAXXFSEVHZUCRABPAKQUXQNEODXBYKHXPVYADEBANUCJCYBATPESPJHMYJSFLUJAIPXEJZXXSZRBKOJMTKUQESMWFTDAIBWXGGKEEWANBWUHBKQXRRA <HHRMOKTZL> SCHNJHBMTNMQATKTEXKHHPQXZXMQZCKMCHKKMZBQHWVJSCFXPOBPAOSFIBBSFNCCLQGHAMXEWPKFDQIJECWUBUAEWVCFODGQYGMWKZRYHUDPRMNBOXOSAPSNTPMHZGESBYGBLDVTHKUJKNSZUIUZKOYPMHRWTNQWBIKWFQQJ KAFXGGFZNGXRUKJOLUAKWLWSBVSVPVMODTAALACILNTLIOSSPCPUZTLTHGUMSMTQPODHGVECYZUNBNDXJEOQSADTQMHCAEATQQEWOAKULJCMMDGRPTUVEVKNRKBJULPMUCOQI <HHRMOKTZL> BKEQRAODVOOZWVKMDCYYAPKKYLZYZAMPQAZQZXSHJEZOUEFSOPHZNPEQOWDHRYAMWMFIFUFAOLMHKOQDAMSIJYFSRKHPECIQAOSZJHOEMAZDSFHLGRCGZSWNAVNBMZNMEOCOVQRENMCAUXJXIYRQFDKOEIFIEOCXMEYNAMLZ YFVETEVHTDRVBQEDGXXRGZDCVIVVXMDMIASWGADGFALEVRCKBSBGCDOSXYRLEAPSWDDBHIZJAHMMIFQZIGLADKWBUYLCFTGSVCCNAQYRJSUMDTBZGLPYAIGMRMKDNVMPSRNYY -:- HHRMOKTZL was kicked off #arstechnica by DrPony (I must be cruel, only to be kind.)

I *thought* that you couldn't even do *that*. I don't think that Server will upgrade an installation of Professional; it's clean reinstall time.

No.

Boo! The sooner NT 4 MCSEs have to take the [harder] Win2K MCSEs, the better, IMO.

That counter appears when you terminate certain core Win2K programs (LSASS springs to mind).

Quote: In control panel, Users and passwords tab is gone , how do i get it back?! win2k advanced server And also when I share a partition, I can't see other computers, and I want to know what to do to see them? Win2K AS never had it in the first place. Out of idle curiosity, why are you using a $3000 OS, without knowing how to use it?

No, Win2K uses namespace extensions so that it can display useful information within the Temporary Internet Files directory from Explorer -- that's how its "details" listing is special (it shows what site a cached file came from, and so on). If you use a shell that doesn't use the namespace extensions (e.g. File Manager, cmd, 4NT, bash) then you can see inside the TIF directory.

Tools -> Options -> Directories. Ensure that the "executable files" set of directories includes the directory that cl resides in.

Makes no difference here whatsoever (which leaves me unsurprised). There seems to be no evidence of anything even reading such a registry key.

Quote: Originally posted by dbgg1979 - is it possible to use task scheduler to shutdown my windows on a certain time? Yes. Quote: - also .. can i use it to disconnect my internet connection (dialup-modem)?? If non-Server versions have similar capabilities to Server versions, yes (I know that there's a command-line tool that enables such actions to be scripted for the Server line of OSes, I don't know if that same tool exists on the workstation/home lines). But something tells me you meant to ask not "can I?" but "how do I?".

The problem is, some [many] programs will respond differently to an empty value as opposed to a non-existant value. If I read a REG_SZ from the registry and it's simply not there, the API call will respond differently than if I read it and it's been set to an empty string. In the former case, I might use a default value -- but I probably won't put in a check to see if it's merely empty (it's reasonable to assume that if the value exists then it's meaningful, no?). If the intent is to delete, then you should make certain to delete.

The "@" symbol merely means "the unnamed (default) value". It has nothing to do with the ability to delete keys from a .reg file. Setting values to a blank string is not equivalent to deleting them.

I'm guessing that turning off the "friendly" log-on screen will restore this functionality.

Quote: Originally posted by Widow I tend to keep runing the following services: a few I could probably live without, but then I have memory to spare. COM+ Event System (Pretty much essential) If you're using COM+. Quote: Distributed Link Tracking Client(Can be turned off but the way I move stuff around on my drives its safer for me to leave this on) Only functions within a domain. If you're not using a Win2K Domain, it does nothing. Quote: DNS Client (Pretty much essential) Event Log (Not essential but great for troubleshooting) That you can't stop it when it's running should highlight that you shouldn't turn it off. Quote: Logical Disk Manager (Not essential, but I have many partitions and turning this off seems the precipitate the system wanted to rearrange drive letters for me...) Hm, it shouldn't, unless you change the drives/partitions in the system. This service watches for changes to the disk configuration and responds to them (and has some roles in dynamic disk management). If you're using normal partitions and don't regularly change them then this service should be redundant (except for when you're configuring partitions in the disk manager thing). Quote: Plug and Play (Not essential but I tend to feel safer leaving this on) This is indeed essential; MS says that disabling it can result in system instability, and they are not lying. Again, the fact that you can't stop it once it's running should draw your attention to its importance. Quote: Protected Storage (Another non essential but I leave it on just the same) P-Store probably isn't needed, though some things like certain parts of IIS require it. Quote: Remote Procedure Call (RPC) (Pretty much essential) Entirely essential. Quote: Removable Storage (Pretty much essential) Nope. This is only useful if you have CD or tape jukeboxes. Quote: Security Accounts Manager (Not essential but logons seem to take longer with it off so I leave it on) Disabling this can seriously ruin your day, as a number of services require it to be running in order to work correctly (though they don't list it as a dependency). Again, the inability to stop it once running suggests it's more important than an average service. Quote: System Event Notification (Pretty much essential) Nope. It's required for some things like detecting if your network cable is unplugged, but it's by no means required. Quote: TCP/IP NetBIOS Helper Service (Pretty much essential) If you're using NetBIOS, this is essential. Quote: Windows Management Instrumentation (Pretty much essential) Windows Management Instrumentation Driver Extensions (Seems to come on whether manual or automatic.) Yes, these two go together, and should be left alone. Quote: Workstation (Pretty much essential) If you're using networking, yes. Quote: Of all the services I have on I set them all to automatic, some were set to manual but would come on anyway. In order to speed up the windows logon its just easier to set them to automatic. This doesn't figure. Leaving them set to manual means that they'll only start if and when needed. Most of them are unrelated to login. Leaving them manual reduces the boot time, because they're not loaded until some time later. This is particularly true for some of the things like, for instance, the WMI Driver Extensions service, which are used internally by the OS more than by the user.

Quote: The difference? I don't see it at work in something I can use. He does not do GUI development as he stated above, showing me he is limiting himself based on his principles alone. GUI is where the money is, GUI is what users want! ha ha ha. It's funny that I make more money than the guys doing the work on the front-ends, then, isn't it? Quote: We've seen it, evidently, he has not. He is as you say, probably working with workstations, exclusively, & not large transaction processing based systems is why & ones that create ALOT of temp tables etc. & scratch areas. Creating & Deleting files is a killer, & causes this in conjunction with append or insert queries in the database realm at least from my experience. No, 'fraid not. I gave rough details of the testing I've done; doing real queries on real databases (amongst other things). Large sequential transfers are incredibly rare, pure and simple.

No. There have been holes where a process running as a privileged user has been compromised so that rather than running the code of the process it runs arbitrary code of the exploiter's choosing. These traditionally use buffer overflows of some variety (where a program creates a fixed-size buffer and proceeds to copy too much information to it, overwriting its stack).

Quote: Originally posted by AlecStaar I've seen that before man... <snip> I must be missing your point! I suspect the main reason is that certain companies saw this as a way of making money, and so spread sufficient FUD that people believed defragging to be important. They constructed some benchmarks using atypical disk access patterns to demonstrate their point (even though real-life usage showed no such problems) and started raking in money. They were aided somewhat by the free cluster algorithm used by MS DOS and Windows 95. Those OSes wrote new data to the first free cluster, even if the subsequent cluster was occupied. Under those OSes, even with a relatively empty hard disk, it was easy to split a file into blocks smaller than the average transfer size. NT doesn't do this, and Windows 98 doesn't do this (unless it happens that the only free space is a single cluster, natch). Fragmentation isn't the problem. It's split I/Os that are the problem. Quote: What about burst writes when the system is pressuring the drives to do those? The OS lazy writes anyway, so it doesn't matter. It's even less of a problem with properly designed applications (if your application uses overlapped [non-blocking] I/O then it doesn't get slowed down (at all) because it doesn't have to wait for disk writes to finish, and can do something else whilst waiting for disk reads). Quote: Test it yourself, tell me you don't see an increase in speed... I have tested it myself. Quite extensively. Real world tests, not synthetic. I could only get performance to be noticably damaged by inflicting truly horrendous (and completely unrealistic) fragmentation on the drive. That is, I filled the drive with 4 kbyte (single cluster) files. I deleted alternate 4 kbyte files (so the largest free space was a single cluster). Then I stuck a database onto the disk. Then I deleted the rest of the 4 kbyte files, and stuck data into the database so that it used the remaining disk space (this gave the interesting situation of occupying the entire disk but being as discontiguous as possible). And, yeah, performance went down the toilet. Split I/Os went through the roof, because virtually every I/O on the disk was split. A disk will never get that bad in real life, even a really full disk. (I did similar tests with larger files (8, 16, 32, 256, 1024, 4096, 8192 kbyte), with similar deletion patterns, and also with mixed sizes. Above 256 kbytes, performance was mostly normal, above 4096 kbytes, almost completely normal). I also tested other things (not just the database); for instance, installing the OS to the drive (with half the files removed). Again, similar story. As long as each fragment was more than 256 kbytes in size, performance was not noticably different (timing with a stopwatch). Quote: if you can fragment up a drive, <snip> slower man! Not IME. And I've tested it a *lot*. Quote: I guess what <snip> use your box. I know where the problems lie -- split I/Os -- and I also know that the vast majority of transfers on my disk are tiny in comparison to the size of disk fragments -- of the order of 64 kbytes or so. Quote: Ok, let's go with what you said... What if seeks don't happen between those reads/writes? On a dedicated box that performs one task with only 1 database on it? I haven't ever used a database that's big enough to have a dedicated server but that also only services one query at a time. There's a lot of head movement because there's a number of things going on at once. Quote: What about burst writes, that capability & capacity is built into most modern disks! Bursting normally occurs to and from the cache anyway. Quote: Really? What <snip> more time! A "massive commit" involves simply telling the transaction log, "Yep, that's done". Not I/O intensive. Quote: I used Access <snip> to them as well. I haven't ever seen an Access database where the bottleneck was caused by something other than it being an Access database. I can't *wait* until MS ditches Jet and uses the SQL Server engine across the board. Quote: Consider the Access .mdb example (you don't need SQL Server for alot of smaller clients & applications you know, lol) & not everyone can even afford the licensing SQL Server or Oracle full models they need that anyhow! For a lot of smaller applications, we use MSDE. It's based on SQL Server (with restrictions on database size and concurrent users), and can be distributed royalty-free with applications developed in Visual Studio and/or MS Office Developer Edition. Even the low-end doesn't need Access. Quote: You admit fragmentation DOES affect performance then, as does MS! It does! Not practically, no. Quote: Just plain physics of the heads having to move all over the drive. Which they would do anyway. Quote: If the heads of the disk have to move all over more than one pass to pickup a file (BECAUSE OF THE FILE BEING FRAGMENTED & ALLOVER THE DRIVE, not because of other programs I/O requests), you are telling me it does not affect it? Yes, because that happens so rarely. Quote: If I have a deck of cards to read in my hand, nicely organized, & this is physical world, like the disk deals in! For me to look at them is a matter of picking up the deck & looking thru it. It's in ONE CHUNK! If they are scattered ALL OVER MY ROOM? I have to pick them up first, then read them. More time, simple! Can't you see this? Yes, I can. What you've ignored is that the disk controller physically isn't capable of picking up the entire deck at once, no matter how it's organized. It can pick up a few cards, then it has to wait, then a few more, then it has to wait, and so on. And it only rarely has to pick up the entire deck anyway. Most of the time, it only wants a couple of cards from the middle, and if that's the case, the only issue is, "are they in the MFT, or are they somewhere else"? As long as they're "somewhere else" it doesn't matter if they're contiguous or not. Quote: PeterB, it was pretty much acknowledged they stated it would be fragment resistant/immune by MS. It was big news when NT first released & considered a selling point... you said it above, not me, so using our OWN words here: "Software Companies Lie" They erred. Not the first time marketers did that. Except that in this case, in real-world usage, they didn't lie. Quote: I never said you could! Please, don't put words in my mouth! Where did I EVER SAY THAT? (Quote it verbatim if you would, thanks) You said it implicitly, by suggesting that fragmentation mattered a damn. Quote: You look at this TOO software centric, & not as an entire system w/ BOTH hardware & software! The performance hit of fragmentation is disk head movements, or extra ones that in unfragmented files, is not present! No, this is just it. I've tested it considerably (speccing up servers for a client; we needed to know if defrag tools were worth including (and if so, which ones)). After considerable tests (of the sort mentioned earlier) the conclusion was fairly clear -- fragmentation was a non-issue (if the database was such that it was really being harmed by fragmentation, it had probably outgrown the disks it lived on). Quote: Microsoft is not divided into SEPARATE companies & will not be. They are STILL MS, Office 2k still uses WinFax SYMANTEC/NORTON technology. They are not a cohesive company. There are divisions within MS, and the aims of different parts of the company quite separate. Quote: Uptime to many companies IS the crucial factor... especially when EVERY SECOND OF IT IS MILLIONS! No. Not uptime. Availability. Uptime is a dick size contest. Availability is what makes you money. Quote: You SHOULD if you can afford it! Like getting a raise, most IS dept's world wide don't get the monies say, Marketing does for example! If you *NEED* something, you make sure you can afford it. Quote: There you go again, YOUR opinion. Pete, it's not the only one man! This isn't "opinion". A UI that puts black text on a black background is objectively a bad UI. Quote: The ability or presence of the ability in Diskeeper to defrag NTFS disks with over 4k clusters in versions 1-6se. It's not important; the only version that made such partitions with any regularity was NT 3.1. Quote: Really? I kept an NT 4.0 box running 1.5 years, without ANY maintenance, running a WildCat 5.0 NT based GUI BBS on it in Atlanta Ga. when I lived there... it can be done, hence 'Microsoft's 'insistence' on running servers with dedicated BackOffice apps one at a time per each server on them. Yeah, it can be, but you can't guarantee it. That machine [obviously] needed service-packing, for instance. Quote: And, PeterB? Even IBM System 390's are not perfect! They can do the 4-5 9's ratings & go without fail for as long as 20 years, but they DO crash! *Exactly*. This is precisely why a company that *NEEDS* uptime *cannot* afford to have only a single computer. Quote: If it fits more conditions for you? Then, naturally, for your use patterns?? It's better FOR YOU! Pete, there you go again man: Your ways & tastes are NOT the only ones! I value system uptime here, I hate reboots! So do I. But ya know what? If I had to reboot the machine each time I had lunch, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Quote: (Want to know why? I have a pwd that is over 25 characters long & strong complexity characteristic of pwd is engaged here mixed case & alphanumeric! Try that sometime tell me you don't dislike uptime then!) Type faster.

Quote: Originally posted by AlecStaar Look, you're a coder! I make speculations on designs of products with NO clues, and many times? I can design something of equal or better performance & aesthetics than an already existing product because I did not have to spend time on the initial idea designs... I can't give you that, & you KNOW it! Er, why not? Bits of the thing are apparently patented; you can at least tell me what the patents are for (they're protected by patent, so I couldn't copy them even if I wanted to). Quote: True, but when I run 3 diff. ones (Dr.Hardware 2001, SiSoftSandra 2001, & WinTune97) on it? That's a decent indicator, as 3 diff. tests concur with how my system responds, for ME, in the real-world! I can tell just running it... try it, you will too. But, up to you! This assumes that the three benchmarks have different testing methodologies. This would very much surprise me. Quote: Does not do that either! Well, actually, it does. It can't help it. It permits me to turn off NT's caching (it claims), but it doesn't require me to. And if I don't do that, it will harm NT's cache, by taking memory that NT would otherwise use for its own cache. Quote: It grabs nothing from the normal cache, & does a better job of things, again... test it yourself, with anything you wish... including your own perceptions (best one) & you will see! How? It's a simple enough question. Does it use a more advanced read-ahead algorithm? Does it merely use a larger cache? Does it allow the same tricks as NT's filecache does (for instance, files can be both in the file cache and in an application's address space simultaneously)? Does it cache CDFS/UDF disks? It says it lets you alter the page size -- but 4 kbyte pages are a hardware feature (Pentiums and perhaps others apparently have a 4 Mbyte page mode, but this is undocumented and requires an NDA to be signed to receive documentation). So what is it actually changing? Quote: Awards are indicators of quality man. When awarded by peers in the field, they are. That's like saying "The Matrix" is a bad film, but 1000's loved it. I guess it depends on your views. Awards are not indicators of quality. They're indicators of the receipt of an award. No more, no less. Quote: It IS winning more acclaim now than it did then in other arenas where our peer judge it! Try it yourself, test any way you like even, the best & only way, right? Its documentation makes dubious claims, and what it's doing is a mystery. It fiddles with important parts of the OS, but doesn't explain how. So, no. Quote: You will see it does boost performance! I don't know why you resist that... you tried my software, and you say you won't use anything that is not "rock solid" but yet, you used my stuff (and I know a few ways you did alot more than once). I couldn't get your stuff to even *install*. Let alone get a chance to use it. Quote: Look around it, they're there... you do have to dig! Not the best organized site I have ever seen! Your best bet, is to test it yourself though, what else can I say? You can give me a URL to some real-world testing. Quote: You tested my APK Windows 2000 Tools stuff, I know this... & like it or not on your part, why resist testing some more of it then? That program is about 1/5 my work, the rest is the work of driver coders, & other C++ folks too. APK Windows 2000 Tools didn't mess with anything important (it never got the chance; the installer bombed out persistently). This program, however, does. And until I get some indication as to /what/ it will change, I won't trust it. Quote: You're too clever I think for me to give you any insight to this, and I know you hang with JEH... HE DEFINITELY COULD ASSIST in your duplicating this! You work the top end GUI part, he work the driver. I've never written a GUI in my life, and I have no desire to start now. Quote: Sorry man, no can tell! Just try it, how bad can it be right? Bad enough to be featured in Windows 2000 mag every month in ads for years now, & rated well by them too! Placing adverts requires money, not quality. How bad can it be? It can crash my system on startup. It can corrupt data. So, pretty bad.

Quote: Originally posted by AlecStaar Consider the head movements are NOT all over the drive, but in the same general area, correct, on a contiguous file, right? This assumes, normally incorrectly, that the heads don't move in-between. Quote: Less time than swinging say, from the middle of the disk (where the original file is striped out) to the nearer the end for the next part until it is all read! Thus, a contiguous file is read faster, correct? Generally, no, it isn't. Rapid sequential reads/writes of large chunks of file are rare. The only things I can think of off the top of my head where this happens are playing DVD movies, and hibernating/unhibernating. It's a remarkably rare action (PerfMon does not lie, though software companies often do). Quote: That happens on heavy fragmented files man, ones that are scattered allover the drive, usually on nearly full disks or ones over 70% full using NTFS! Except that it really doesn't. Quote: You see they do occur, & you concede this! Those tiny things add up! In terms of detrimental effects & positive ones! They make a difference, I beg to differ here! Especially on near full or over 70% full disks that are fragged already. The fullness is not a major concern (the number of files is more important). And if the seeks happen between reads/writes, then no, they do not matter. Quote: Not true! On a heavily fragged nearly full disk? The degree of that fragmentation can cause MORE of it & why I used the examples of slowdowns I have seen on HUGE databases because of fragmentations! You bust that file up all over a disk? ESPECIALLY ON A DISK THAT IS PAST 70% or so full already? You see it get slower. In artificial benchmarks (which tend to do lots of rapid sequential reading/writing), sure. In real life (which doesn't), no. Quote: If the file IS scattered allover a drive? Fragmentation INTERNALLY w/ alot of slack in it & EXTERNALLY on disk from record deletions & inserts. Inserts are what cause the fragmentation externally if you ask me! They cause it to grow & fragment on disk, slowing it down & busting it into non-contiguous segments all over the drive! Not in the same contiguous area as the filesystem works to place that data down & mark it as part of the original file w/ a pointer. I don't know about the database that you use, but the ones I use (mostly SQL Server and DB2) aren't so simplistic as to work like that. They won't enlarge the file a row at a time (as it were). They'll enlarge it by a sizable chunk at a time. Even if they have to enlarge the file often, they do so in a way that does not greatly increase the number of split I/Os. Quote: On a nearing full disk? This REALLY gets bad! The system has to struggle to place files down & does fragment them! It doesn't have to "struggle" to place files down. It doesn't actually *care*. Quote: &, Microsoft said NTFS was frag-proof initially. Well, so much for that I guess! The proof's in the pudding now! Actually, they said that NTFS didn't have its performance damaged by fragmentation, except in the most extreme cases (where average fragment size is around the same as average I/O transfer size). Quote: You're saying fragmentation does not hurt system performance? I remember Microsoft saying NTFS would be 'frag proof', this is not the case! No, they said its performance wouldn't be damaged. This isn't the same statement as saying it doesn't get fragmented -- it does. Quote: I want to know something: Did you get your information about this from an old Microsoft Tech-Ed article? As good as MS is, they are not perfect. Nobody is. Which information? Quote: Again: When a disk is over 70% or so full & you have for instance, a growing database due to insertions? & alot of the data is fragmented from other things already? You WILL fragment your file & then the disk will be slowed down reading it! Only if the fragment size is around the same size as the average I/O transfer size, and that is an extremely rare situation. Quote: Heavy frags on near full drives with fragmentation slows a disk down & it is pretty much, common sensical anyhow, ESPECIALLY ON DISKS NEARING OVER 70% full capacity w/ fragmented files on them! No, it doesn't. You can't speed up an unsplit I/O by making the rest of the file contiguous. Quote: Ever play the card game "52 pickup"? Think of it in those terms. A nicely stacked decked is alot simpler to manage than a 52 pickup game! The only part of the system that even knows the file is fragmented is the NTFS driver. Nothing else has a clue. And the NTFS driver doesn't care if a file is in one extent or a hundred. Quote: I have not seen that to date yet! It won't happen. Not a wise business move to lose an ally! Microsoft helps Symantec make money & vice-a-versa via license of Symantec technology & royalties no doubt paid for it! MS still uses WinFax technology in Office 2000 for Outlook if you need it! A revenue source for both parties, & a featureset boost! Office is developed by a different group to the OSes (and the 9x group was a different group to the NT group). Some collusion in one area does not suggest collusion in another area. Hence the Office people making software for platforms that compete with the OS people (Office for Mac, etc.). Quote: Yes, & Symantec (note my winfax lite technology licensed example in Office 2000 above). Business: the arena of usurious relationships & fair-weather friends! Except that helping Symantec with their defragger yields no benefits, because they're already relying on Executive Software to do the work there. Quote: Everyone requires it, but not ALL can afford it! No, not everyone requires it. If the fileservers in our office were turned off at 1700 on a Friday and not turned on until 0800 on a Monday, it would make not a bit of difference to us. We don't need 100% availability, or even close. Quote: Pretty simple matter of economics really! Not everyone can afford to build a cluster of Dell PowerEdge rigs you know! Downtime DOES matter, to me at least! If downtime matters to you/your business, you get a cluster. It's that simple. Quote: That's relative & a matter of opinion! Some guys I know are married to some REAL DOGS, but to them? They're beautiful... beauty is in the eye of the beholder, don't you think?? I found no bugs in it to date & lucky I guess! I have the latest patch for it via LiveUpdate! No, I didn't say ugly -- I said horrendous. It uses hard-coded colours that renders portions of the UI unusable with non-standard colour schemes (certain icons are rendered near-invisible, for instance). That is to say, the UI is *broken*. Quote: Hmmm, why omit the feature then? Bad move... it limits their own defragger as well apparently, Diskeeper up to 6se for sure I know of, & most likely? PerfectDisk by Raxco since it uses those system calls that Diskeeper does (& that Execsoft created & was licensed by MS). What feature is being "omitted"? And I'm not sure the Win2K defrag APIs are quite that simple. Not least because the FSCTLs are also available for FAT32, which NT4 didn't support. Quote: It patched a critical file PeterB/DrPizza. I am almost CERTAIN it was ntoskrnl.exe in fact, it was many years ago! You can research that if you like. I'd have to dig up old Cd's of Diskeeper 1.01-1.09 for NT 3.5x around here still to tell you which file exactly! Why they did not use it at MS or Diskeeper of all folks that API's inventor, is a STRANGE move! I'm not sure what you're talking abuot. Why who didn't use what, when? Quote: Agreed, a strange move! BUT, one w/ benefits like not having to take down the OS to defrag directories, pagefiles, MFT$, etc. Uptime is assured, & not every company can afford failover clustering setups man. Then that company does not, ipso facto, require high availability. Without specialized hardware, you can't get high availability from a single machine. If you want it, you *need* redundance. This is unavoidable. Quote: Just a financial fact unfortunately & how life is! Heck, maybe they can, but every try getting a raise? Or asking your IT/IS mgr. for money for things you don't REALLY need? If you REALLY need high availability, then you REALLY need more than one machine. Having a single machine means that it can't ever have hardware swapped out and it can't ever have software installed/updated. Neither of these constraints is workable. Quote: Was wondering that myself & I looked as well! I heard it from Dosfreak in this post above I believe! Take a look, he is generally pretty spot-on on things, & I take his word alot on stuff! See, if it's XP-only, then it's no surprise. The FSCTLs in XP are more fully-featured. They work on certain metadata files, they work with large clusters. Quote: That's a VERY good "could be", depends on the mechanics of defraggers & how dependent this is on the calls that do the defrags! I don't know about that part you just stated I am not that heavy into keeping up on "will be's" here only more into the "now" stuff until the new stuff appears & is tested thoroughly usually! Well, allowing the FSCTLs to work with larger clusters won't break anything (older defraggers might not be able to defrag partitions with large clusters all the same, but they won't break). This, you see, is why the FSCTL approach is the best (and why I won't touch Speed Disk). It ensures that you won't be broken by changes in the FS, and by sticking to a published API, you aren't relying on the OS's internals working in a particular way. And you're ensuring that your software will continue to work in new OS versions.

Quote: Originally posted by AlecStaar Ok then, fine... do not try it! It's your loss maybe, you know? You're being 'close-minded' & all I am asking you is, try it and see! No, I am asking for more information about the product. Before I install it, I want to know what it does, and I want to know why it's better than the built-in caching done by the OS. Quote: When I use it here, as I am now? I can see/feel my system going faster, as well as having benchmarks show a HUGE gain in diskspeeds! Again, benchmarks are of no interested whatsoever. One can show pretty much anything with a benchmark. Quote: It's not that... NOT that simple! It's not using the SessionManager, Memory Management, LargeSystemCache=1 setting registry hack if that's what you mean. It's a driver Peterb/DrPizza. Tuneable & parameterizeable & creates its OWN memory cache that compliments the native one. This already sets the alarm bells off. If it uses its own memory cache, that necessarily means depriving the system cache (because the system cache is free to grow as large as it likes; if this other program is using a large block of memory for its own cache, the system cache can't then use it). Quote: Again, do try it and see... I would wager you purchase it as I did & then developed part of its engines! Again, outline what it does. Quote: DrPizza: Programs that place as finalists for 2 years in a row at Microsoft Tech-Ed? Where guys like yourself & myself are the ones looking stuff over, along with our bosses?? Speak for yourself. My boss wouldn't know one end of a computer from the other. I have no interest in award ceremonies (plenty of software I wouldn't care to use receives awards; they're a poor indication of quality). Quote: Are not getting that high up (and, in SQL Server categories with DBA's looking at them) for no reason! It also won BackOffice Mag's B.O.S.S. award, & Windows 2000 magazine (then Windows NT mag) in April 1997 gave it a clean bill of health & good review in 1997 April issue page 63! Read it yourself, the article is on their site... that was only the initial versions too, it has gotten better (Heck, I wrote parts that made it better, & helped it to do as well as it did at Tech-Ed). It being good in 1997 doesn't mean it'll assist Windows 2000 at all. Quote: See, telling a guy as much as I told you now above? Gave him enough ideas to copy RamCharge on me... mistake on my part! But, what I did was original, & the first! That's good enough, & I made quite a bit of cash selling it since 1997, & still do! BUT, not as much... anyone can copy/steal really! Even improve on things... takes original thinking OUTSIDE THE BOX, to create! SuperCache-NT is such a creation & is winning awards for it AND showing its use on benchmarks & also real-world use! I might be looking in the wrong place, but I can't find any real-world benchmarks on the web site, at all. Again, something that sets off the alarm bells. Quote: Business Rule PeterB/DrPizza: A good magician? Never gives away ALL of his tricks... I do hand out alot, why not? Helping folks out is 'good karma' and good for yourself too, good review! But, on programming mechanisms, no... lol, not on ones that have made me money! I did that once with memory mechanisms for RamCharge & told a guy ONE TINY CLUE, he turned around & wrote one like it! Then there can't have been a great deal to it. Quote: I was a Windows Magazine 1997 Shareware of the year winner with that program... next year? He was... after using my idea! I learnt my lesson there! Nuff said... I have no intention of copying the program. I just wish to read an explanation, even a vague one, of how it works (and, more importantly, how it speeds things up).

Quote: Originally posted by AlecStaar Your whole premise rests on that grounds... now, if I do not defrag my disk for a year, and have say... my Quake III Arena data files all fragmented all over the disk? You are telling me that this does not slow the system down?? That the disk head has to make alot of swings/passes to assemble that file does not take place??? If it's only reading 64 kbytes at a time, then it doesn't matter -- because it would make those multiple head movements anyway. If you attempt to do a large contiguous read, it gets split up anyway, regardless of whether the file is fragmented. That's the nature of disk controllers. They can't read an arbitrarily large amount of information at once; instead, they have to split large requests into multiple small ones. This is even the case for large reads of a contiguous file. It's unavoidable. Yes, the extra seeks have to happen -- but if they happen between reads anyway, they make no difference. Quote: It depends on the degree of fragmentation! Your "IF" cuts both ways... The "degree" of fragmentation isn't important. The size of the fragments is somewhat important. The average transfer size is even more important. And the number of Split I/Os is the true statistic that demonstrates if fragmentation is having any effect at all. Quote: There's your entire big "IF" again... what if it is? What if a large database is in pieces all over a disk from constant inserts to it via Insert queries? Same idea as a Quake III game data file from above! It will take ALOT longer to load! No questions there! If the database is only being read 64 kbytes at a time, it won't make a blind bit of difference. Similarly, if it's only being written 64 kbytes at a time. And most I/Os are less than this size. Quote: Again, this depends on the degree of fragmentation, pretty common sense! But, I see your point also... but, try to see mine! I've seen databases SO torn apart by deletes & inserts, that defrags & internal compacts/reorgs to them inside of them? Made them speedup, bigtime! I see the point you're trying to make, but I know from experience that split I/Os are rare, even on highly fragmented files on highly fragmented disks. And if I'm not getting split I/Os then the fragmentation does not matter. Quote: Don't ask me then! Ask DosFreak! He saw & participated in tests I ran & that others ran as well! 3 different testing softwares, 3 different testers conducted the tests. I was amazed when my Dual CPU Pentium III 1121ghz beat a Dual Athlon @ 1.4ghz, & also a Dual Palomino @ 1.2ghz! No reason to lie here believe me... ask DosFreak! His machine is a HAIR faster than mine! It's quite simple, actually. A 1.4 GHz Athlon is faster than a 1100 MHz PIII, ceteris paribus. Give the Athlon an old RLL drive and then run a disk benchmark and obviously, it'll suck. But the processor and its memory subsystem are both faster on the Athlon (no question about this). Quote: Tell me how a fragmented large database reads slower (touche)... your argument depends on that single premise. It falls apart in the light of heavily fragmented disks! No, it doesn't. Heavily fragmented disks don't suddenly start needing to do larger I/Os. They still only do small (<64 kbyte) I/Os, and those still don't get split. Quote: I never said anything of the kind that "defragging a non-split I/O on a fragmented file" would be faster... don't try put words in my mouth! A whole file is just healthier for the system, I can guarantee that my OS cares not whether files are contiguous or fragmented. Quote: and the drive itself. Less head motion used to read it, and only 1 pass used. Except that it doesn't work like that, except for very small files (and they would be read contiguously even with fragmentation). Large files can't be read in a single I/O transfer. It's always "read a bit, wait a bit for the OS to move the buffered data somewhere else, read a bit more, etc..". The nature of disk controllers. Quote: On your points above: 1.) Speedisk from Norton/Symantec, is probably NEVER going to break the filesystem as you state! Yes, it could, and it would be quite easy. It relies on the FS working in a particular way, but the FS is not guaranteed to work in a particular way. Quote: They are in tight with Microsoft & always really have been! I am sure they are appraised of ANY changes coming from MS regarding this WELL beforehand! Actually, they *aren't*, and this is one of the problems I have. Quote: Unless Microsoft wants to get rid of them etc. as a business ally! Fat chance! Of course they do. MS are in bed with Executive Software. Quote: 2.) Not everyone can afford a cluster of boxes like MS can do thru the old Wolfpack clustering 2 at a time or newer ones... so uptime? IS a plus! If you require high availability, then you make sure you can afford a cluster. If you do not require high availability, then you can manage with a single machine, and downtime doesn't matter. Quote: 3.) On defraggers? The original subject?? I keep Norton Speedisk & Execsoft Diskeeper around! They both have merits. I would like to try PerfectDisk by Raxco one day, just for the sake of trying it though! It has a horrendous interface, and, like Diskeeper and O&O (Speed Disk isn't going anywhere near my computer, so I can't comment on it) is a bit buggy. Quote: PeterB/DrPizza, you hate Speedisk? Then, you might not like the new Diskeeper 7 then... If it doesn't use the defrag FSCTLs then it has no place on any production machine. If it can only defrag partitions with >4kbyte clusters on XP/Win2K2, then that's fine, because XP extends the FSCTLs so that they can defrag the MFT (and other bits of metadata, I think), and so that they work on clusters larger than 4 kbytes. Quote: It must be patching the OS again (as old Diskeeper 1.0-1.09 I believe, had to for NT 3.5x to use them). I don't think that it is, not least because WFP won't let it. Quote: Why do I say that? Well, I cannot defrag a volume here that is using 64k clusters using Diskeeper 6.0 Se... but I can with Speedisk! That doesn't require patching the kernel, it merely means not using the FSCTLs provided by the FS drivers. Quote: Diskeeper 7? It can now do over 4k NTFS clusters! It MUST be patching the OS again like old ones did! Unless, they completely blew off using that functionality in the API they sold to MS in current models of Diskeeper! I am guessing, because PerfectDisk is also one that uses native API calls for defragmentations? It too, is limited on NTFS defrags on volumes with more than 4k NTFS cluster sizes! My guess is that this ability is restricted to XP/2K2, because those expand the capabilities of the defrag FSCTLs to work with >4 kbyte clusters. To abandon the built-in FSCTLs would be a strange move indeed. I can't find any mention of this new ability on Executive Software's web page, and I'm not running a WinXP machine to test. Where can I find more information about it? One thing to note is that MS might update the NTFS driver in Win2K to match the one in WinXP (as they did in NT 4; I think that SP 4 shipped what was in effect the Win2K driver, so that it could cope with the updated NTFS version that Win2K uses). This might serve to retrofit the ability to defrag partitions with large clusters.

Quote: Originally posted by AlecStaar Try it and see! No, because I don't know what it does, and I'm not in the habit of installing software whose purpose and mechanism is unknown. Quote: You'll see increased speeds on disks... just try it! See, I'm not convinced that I will see increased speeds, because I don't know what it does. For all I know it might do nothing more than enable the unlimited file cache registry key (which I already have enabled). Quote: * If I told you? You could write your own! Surely it can't be so trivially simple that a quick description of what it does that NT doesn't would be sufficient for me to write my own version? Quote: (The evidence is just you trying it and running benchmarks on it like WinTune97, SiSoftSandra, DrHardware, etc., standard tests alot of folks use is one way for you to see what it does!) The only thing I'm interested is real-world performance.

Quote: Originally posted by AlecStaar Why? They add up! No. They do not. If an I/O is not split on a fragmented file then defragmenting that file will not make that I/O any faster. Quote: Tweaking's cumulative... the more 'tiny' savings you make, the faster you will run overall & at many times! (That's how I look at it at least... seems to work for me!) There is no saving to be made. If the I/O isn't split, then it can't be made any faster. Quote: An example: DosFreak & my systems for instance (basically the same) beat the snot out of Dual Athlons of 1.4ghz & Dual Palominos of 1.2ghz not too long ago... and, also many kinds of 'High-End' Athlons of 1.4ghz & up to 1.7ghz overclocked in fact! AND? We only run Dual Pentium III's, overclocked to 1121ghz & 1127ghz! There is no /way/ that a PIII at 1100-odd MHz can match an Athlon at 1.4 GHz, with a few exceptions (such as using SSE on the PIII but using a pre-SSE AMD processor). Quote: In a forum FULL of VERY VERY FAST single cpu rigs, also, we basically dusted them across the boards! This was tested on 3 separate benchmark tests: WinTune97, Dr. Hardware 2001, & SiSoft Sandra 2001. It made NO sense we should win nearly across the boards on most all categories, but we did! Tell me how defragging makes a non-split I/O on a fragmented file any faster. Quote: I think taking 'little bits' of speed in tweaks like defragging well, system memory tuning & registry hacks for all kinds of things (as well as using the most current drivers etc.), adds up! Not if there's nothing to add.

Quote: Now, what makes ME wonder, is the "SU" type mechanism (or "run as" service or rightclick for explorer.exe extensions) itself. I would guess that only lets you do things as users less than yourself, or it'd be one heck of a security hole! No, of course not. su and RunAs both require password authentication. So they can't be used to elevate privileges.