Sorry gang! Been fun while it lasted. But I surrender and hang up my double edge claymore sword. Crawdad can have the last say if he wants to.
Off topic: On a lighter note.
Reminds me of the story of a group of school kids who had to share class stories with a moral to them. When the proverbial Johnny was asked to share he said he had an aunty Karen who was in the armed forces. While flying over enemy territory, the plane she was in was shot down.
She bailed out with a machine gun, a machete and a quart of whisky. On the way down she drank the whisky in case it smashed when she landed. Turned out she landed in a nest of 100 hostiles.
She mowed down about 65 of them with the machine gun, till she ran out of ammo. Then she machetted about another 20, until the blade on the machete broke; and finished off the last 15 off with her bare hands using karate.
The teacher was horrified at such a terrible story, and asked Johnny what the moral of the story could possibly be?
Johnny replied that his father had said the moral of the story was: "Don't mess with Aunty Karen when she's on the booze!"
I agree (and specifically said) that I do not advocate defragging SSD's. Just that it's not "ridiculous" to do so, just not all that practical. I said (repeatedly) that moving blocks around on an SSD has no benefit and was pointless, and does increase wear.
The thing about SSD's though, is that they are still treated as if they are physical drives by the hardware, and as such they are subject to a much more complex set of protocols and latencies that a directly connected set of memory would not be subject to (although it will be interesting to see SSD's that work over something like Thunderbolt, which is basically external direct PCI-e). So certain operations that would be negligible in direct memory access could be a lot more time consuming over SATA due to latency.
Yes, I agree that this is largely speculation based on theoretical usages, and I have not performed benchmarks to verify.
Ok, seriously right now, why are we discussing defragging SSDs and keep dragging on a conversation that is turning into insults?
All I know through experience is that I think I ruined a thumb drive by defragging it. I would be gun shy if I had or obtained a HDD. It was nice listening to the argument. Learned a lot.
I'm sure you'll all remain friends.
Right about now, I want to downgrade. To Windows 2K. Oh, how I love the Classic theme. Thank you Windows 7!
I don't see a reason to spend money on this personally. It's got a few neat features, but certainly nothing that I cannot live without. Even at $40, it's money.
And watch OS X start selling multiple editions. At the same prices of Seven.
In fairness and the scientific principle of seeking facts, today I spoke to the professor who is head of the Dept of Eelctronics and Computer Science at Curtin University, West Australia. I asked if defragging SSDs is good, bad or indiferent. This is his answer:
While I acknowledge his superior academic background, I am still not totally convinced, because his premise is primarily based on conserving the write/read life of an SSD. And this is definitely an open area of investigation, as shown by this typical blog by Max Schireson entitled: "Debunking SSD lifespan and random write performance concerns." It is found via this link HERE. In part he says:No you definitely should not defrag SSDs for two reasons.
1. SSDs have a finite number of writes & reads, so defrags reduce the life span of the SSD.
2. The memory is differently oragnized so there is no need for it.
Defragging per se would have no detrimental effects, and in some cases could marginally increase the performance, but it is so small a gain it is not justified in respect of reason #1 above.
And so it goes on. The point is, if durability is not an issue, there may some environments in which defragging may be of benefit. Note the reference to sequential writing and relate that to ability of hardware logical flip-flop IC chips to read binary codes once the data is collated, which is exactly what defrag does.Durability: The short answer is I wouldn’t worry about it.
For applications which are heavy on random writes, you’re OK (meaning a life span of over 5 years) up to about 25 million writes per day per drive, which is nearly double the IO capacity of the fastest hard disk drives.
For sequential write heavy applications (which benefit far less from SSDs), you’re OK (same 5 year life cycle) assuming the application re-writes each block on average no more than once per half hour; the smallest size of the latest fast HDD’s can barely manage this (take a Seagate Cheetah 15k.7 at 300GB for example, which has a claimed sustained write throughput of 171 MBps), and it gets harder as disks get larger.
- I am of the opinion that durability is not an issue.
- I strongly suspect there are certain environemnts in which defrag would help ... especially if the right type of defrag application is used. And this warrants further investigation.
Anyhoo, as Cokebottle and a few others have said, this is a thread related to Win8, so if anyone wants to pursue it further, should be done in an independent thread dedicated to SSDs. Cheers PB