Is ATA ok.????????????

[cellardweller]

There is also plenty of info here (somewhere) on installing HDD.

So as far as fragmentation, your disc should be de-fragged anytime a new audio file is placed/recorded on the HDD? Is this excessive?

 

[JazzMang]

So as far as fragmentation, your disc should be de-fragged anytime a new audio file is placed/recorded on the HDD?

No. All I was saying in my last post is that intra-file fragmentation occurs during use of your computer. It just happens. All I am getting at is that fragmentation = bad for your drive and bad when you are trying to keep your computer zippy.

Just remember to defrag. And partitions are useless. Just make a folder. Geez.

 

[Jross]

Just use Diskeeper!!!! It defragments your drives when your not around. You can set it to defrag when your screensaver is active.

Also, No reason to partition a single drive unless you need to for OS purpouses. When you defragment a single drive it spreads out a "file" (multiple bits of info) around the disk in the order it needs to read it, Then it can pick up all of the peices in one revolution instead of maybe 3. This will work for all info on the drive. Partitioning doesn't change seek times.

 

[JazzMang]

Partitioning doesn't change seek times.

Oh my god. who are these people?

Partitioning will result in higher seek times in many circumstances.

Background info: The access time for disk drives includes the time it actually takes for the read/write head to locate a sector on the disk (called the seek time). This is an average time since it depends on how far away the head is from the desired data.

In short, when accessing two pieces of data simultaneously (as all computers try to do), the seek time will get higher depending on the distance the drive head has to travel in order to access that data. Therefore by having a non-system partition (located at the end of the booting partition, C:\), your seek times between OS data (which is accessed frequenntly by your OS) and data on the non-system partition will be higher than if you had all of your data closer together (in the same partition). Its a simple matter of physics. Come on.

Edit: Oh, and defragging whenever your screensaver comes on is bordering on excessiveness.

 

[Jross]

What I meant is that it would not reduce the seek times as suggested in earlier posts. Yes you are correct.

 

[AGCurry]

fragmentation has little effect in speed. but it can cause problems when you are writing big files. Since files will not be written fragmented. One file is one file and if a 200MEG file is larger than the fragment it can become corupt. It will not write a part of a single file in a location then the rest of it in nother.

Perhaps, then, you'd like to explain how files DO become fragmented...

 

[dgatwood]

psst - ATA133 is useless. I can plug in a 120 GB ATA100 drive and another 120 GB ATA133 drive and show you that the difference is nil. ATA133 might as well be the ATA group's most useless designation. ATA133 builds in more protocol overhead as well as a slightly higher peak burst rate. unfortunately, no one makes any hard drive that is ATA133 and actually hits 133 megs/sec burst rate.

Well... I could be off in my specs by one rev, but IIRC, ATA133 is the lowest level in which all controllers are guaranteed to correctly support LBA48 in their drivers/boot firmware. I think most ATA100s do, but I feel like it was added some time during the ATA100 run. I could be off, though. It might have been between ATA66 and ATA100, in which case, yeah, useless.

For folks who don't know, LBA48 is a.k.a. 'large drive support', i.e. support for drives over 128 binary gigs (~137 base-10 "gigs"). That said, if the drivers handle it correctly, I've used LBA48 on controllers that predate ATA-33.