It has nothing to do with each other since wear leveling is the reorganization of data at the physical block level (cell) of the MLC SSD and defrag is the organization of the data at the logical (NTFS) level of the operating system. The magnitude of the fragmentation problem is reduced though, because the performance difference between an optimal layout and worst case isn't nearly as crippling as with a HDD."Īnd BTW, defrag is totally different from wear leveling. There might be a new opportunity for tools to be developed that will "defragment" an SSD, but they may need inside knowledge of how each SSD works.
Currently the firmware is responsible for keeping everything as organized as possible. That said, there certainly are best and worst case layouts for data organization on SSD media. A traditional HDD will fetch that same scattered file drastically slower, which was the original motivation for defragmentation. SSDs are exceedingly fast at seeking, so fetching a seemingly scattered file is going to be nearly as fast as fetching a file that is written sequentially. I would cautiously suggest that anyone using any SSD should disable automatic defrag on that drive and don't bother running it manually.
#Buy diskkeeper how to#
For that reason, standard defrag tools will not make correct decisions about how to optimize the file system layout on an SSD. This is done to overcome the limitations of flash memory (eg. Solid state drives generally do not organize data the way that HDDs do, or the way the operating system is expecting them to. Unfortunately this answer isn't exactly straightforward. To add fuel to the fire, straight from an Intel SSD engineer:Ī. In fact, their numbers suggest that a HyperFast-enabled SSD will actually perform slower than one without the attached service. Forum members over at OCZ Technology ran benchmarks on HyperFast-enabled drives, and they claimed to see no performance improvement whatsoever. The company boasts reads that are 5.9 times faster and writes that are 19.5 times faster on the benchmarks it’s showing off. This reduces the overall number of write/erase routines that need to run and should lead to higher performance metrics and a greater lifespan.
#Buy diskkeeper software#
Defragmenting the SSD would only jumble the data around more, for a “sequential” file as seen by a software defragmenter doesn’t correspond to a sequential series of pages on an SSD block.Īccording to Diskeeper, its HyperFast technology makes sure that files are written to solid-state drives in a sequential order. An SSD’s firmware uses wear-leveling functionality to assign different locations for the data you push to the drive.
#Buy diskkeeper free#
The company claims that it’s trying to reduce an SSD’s free space fragmentation levels-but the “benefits” of solid-state defragmentation are nebulous at best. I know exactly what I was doing.What does that mean? We crawled through Diskeeper’s white papers to find out, but still couldn’t figure out exactly how this new process speeds up a solid-state drive. While you can schedule the built in one you can't get it to run continously.Please don't say I've fallen for anything. Second, Diskeeper will run 24 hours a day continously. The built in defrag would impact performance when it was running, it wasn't intelligent enough to pause when another application was trying to access the same file or drive. First, it pauses automatically when I/O increases. Diskeeper gives me two very important things the built in one does. This is also known as: falling for a marketing gimmick. Quote:Originally posted by Dilbert:Running 3rd party defrag apps over the built-in defrag makes no difference one way or the other.And since the built in defrag is free and you already have it, it stands to reason that no one should ever want to buy a 3rd party defrag program.And yet the lot of you keep going out of your way to spend money on something you don't need.
0 kommentar(er)
