Twayne

> There's a balance to be struck. Of course a heavily fragmented disk
> will endure more wear, but overuse of defrag will do the same.
>
> And of course fewer disks wear out due to excessive defragging. It's
> more the opposite. The vast majority of them are of the first type --
> not enough defragging, rather than too much. But that doesn't make my
> statement ridiculous. It's a true statement.

In reality there are so many other variables involved in these scenarios
that generalizations can be made but that's about all. I seriously
doubt the two camps here actually cover the reality of disk failure.
One would be hard pressed to even get empirical evidence of either case.
In my experience the reasons for disk failures have ranged from worn
out bearings to dust (broken seals) to a platter's head failure to head
misalignments due to rough handling, to ... you name it. Then that
takes you into areas such as whether it's best to leave the disk
spinning or shut it down during periods of non-use, etc. etc. etc..
I've never seen one that indicated the problem was attributed to
excessive head movement of any kind where the head just wasn't able to
move; something you can easily hear in nearly 100% of the drives ever
made.

Not trying to do an ego boost for myself here; just trying to indicate
that it's sort of a moot point about defrag or not from a mechanical
viewpoint. As long as the hermetic seal remains in tact, there should
be little to wear out except for grease moving out of its intended place
and not getting used, which IME has always been what crashes disks early
in their lives. Somewhere I have a white paper on this from some lab
but I can't find it now of course!

Cheers,

Twayne

>
>
> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message
> news:EqBtk.19431$jI5.568@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Granted, disks wear out.
>> However, as a product, they have a life expectancy.
>> If a disk fails chances are it won't be because of defragging. Did
>> it ever occur to you that there could be MORE wear if it is NOT
>> defragged? "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>> news:uTcPTxJCJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> The joke doesn't apply. Unnecessary defragging will simply wear the
>>> disk out faster for no good reason.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>> http://grystmill.com
>>>
>>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OcpUStJCJHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Penorama wrote:
>>>>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run
>>>>> Scandisk and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer spick
>>>>> and span. Does it still apply to these days of Windows XP and
>>>>> Vista? As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance measures
>>>>> every
>>>>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present day
>>>>> software environment.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [Joke shortened]
>>>>
>>>> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish
>>>> theater around the turn of the last century.
>>>>
>>>> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out:
>>>> "Give him an enema!"
>>>>
>>>> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"
>>>>
>>>> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it can't
>>>> hurt."

Gary S. Terhune

Thanks for the elucidation, but it seems to me that you're just describing
the ways in which disks wear out. Are you claiming that the amount of use,
specifically the amount of head movement, does not play any role in causing
at least some of those issues to arise, subsequently leading to failure?
Speaking, here, of disks that aren't essentially DOA? Ones that have been in
use for some time? I would imagine that bearing failure or seals gone bad
would lead to the highest proportion of failures, failures that could derive
from simply idling for five years or whatever, but other types of failure
surely derive from actual use, as opposed to spinning idly, do they not?

Of course I was making a generalization, as was everyone else in the thread
except Unknown, who has a developed a hobby that consists of seeing if he
can catch me in an error. He is often in error and I feel it's my
responsibility to correct those errors, which had caused him to develop
resentment, etc.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:%23HjZELfCJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> There's a balance to be struck. Of course a heavily fragmented disk
>> will endure more wear, but overuse of defrag will do the same.
>>
>> And of course fewer disks wear out due to excessive defragging. It's
>> more the opposite. The vast majority of them are of the first type --
>> not enough defragging, rather than too much. But that doesn't make my
>> statement ridiculous. It's a true statement.
>
> In reality there are so many other variables involved in these scenarios
> that generalizations can be made but that's about all. I seriously doubt
> the two camps here actually cover the reality of disk failure. One would
> be hard pressed to even get empirical evidence of either case.
> In my experience the reasons for disk failures have ranged from worn out
> bearings to dust (broken seals) to a platter's head failure to head
> misalignments due to rough handling, to ... you name it. Then that takes
> you into areas such as whether it's best to leave the disk spinning or
> shut it down during periods of non-use, etc. etc. etc.. I've never seen
> one that indicated the problem was attributed to excessive head movement
> of any kind where the head just wasn't able to move; something you can
> easily hear in nearly 100% of the drives ever made.
>
> Not trying to do an ego boost for myself here; just trying to indicate
> that it's sort of a moot point about defrag or not from a mechanical
> viewpoint. As long as the hermetic seal remains in tact, there should be
> little to wear out except for grease moving out of its intended place and
> not getting used, which IME has always been what crashes disks early in
> their lives. Somewhere I have a white paper on this from some lab but I
> can't find it now of course!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Twayne
>
>>
>>
>> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message
>> news:EqBtk.19431$jI5.568@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>> That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Granted, disks wear out.
>>> However, as a product, they have a life expectancy.
>>> If a disk fails chances are it won't be because of defragging. Did
>>> it ever occur to you that there could be MORE wear if it is NOT
>>> defragged? "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>>> news:uTcPTxJCJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> The joke doesn't apply. Unnecessary defragging will simply wear the
>>>> disk out faster for no good reason.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>> http://grystmill.com
>>>>
>>>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:OcpUStJCJHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Penorama wrote:
>>>>>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run
>>>>>> Scandisk and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer spick
>>>>>> and span. Does it still apply to these days of Windows XP and
>>>>>> Vista? As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance measures
>>>>>> every
>>>>>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present day
>>>>>> software environment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [Joke shortened]
>>>>>
>>>>> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish
>>>>> theater around the turn of the last century.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out:
>>>>> "Give him an enema!"
>>>>>
>>>>> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"
>>>>>
>>>>> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it can't
>>>>> hurt."
>
>
>

Twayne

Nah, perish the though of my trying to say anything doesn't play a role
in ... whatever. It's all connected of course and as soon as you try to
say always or never, the gremlins and Murphys will come scrambling in
from every orfice and totally negate any recent well intentioned
allegations<g>.
As you say, it's all generalizations unless we're lucky enough to
work in a lab that specializes in such things or at least have access to
some of their records, many of which are questionable at best anyway.
Actually, if you've ever disassembled any hard drives carefully
enough, it's amazing the heads manage to live as long as they do, buried
in amongst the flying platters and all with what appears at least to me,
to be very flimsy physical structures. At least the magnets are a blast
to play with<g>!

I agree with everything you said; no arguement at all in any way. I
think my reaction was more to the point that the discussion seemed to be
assuming that there was only that one single failure mechanism that
meant anything and I wanted to point out that it wasn't going to go
anywhere useful;

As for mr unknown, or ms, whatever it may be, some just feel a need to
grasp for their lack of power in the relatively safe ehter of the 'net.
There's quite a mix of ego, personality and covert power plays on the
groups but they're mostly harmless beings<g>.

Cheers,

Twayne


> Thanks for the elucidation, but it seems to me that you're just
> describing the ways in which disks wear out. Are you claiming that
> the amount of use, specifically the amount of head movement, does not
> play any role in causing at least some of those issues to arise,
> subsequently leading to failure? Speaking, here, of disks that aren't
> essentially DOA? Ones that have been in use for some time? I would
> imagine that bearing failure or seals gone bad would lead to the
> highest proportion of failures, failures that could derive from
> simply idling for five years or whatever, but other types of failure
> surely derive from actual use, as opposed to spinning idly, do they
> not?
> Of course I was making a generalization, as was everyone else in the
> thread except Unknown, who has a developed a hobby that consists of
> seeing if he can catch me in an error. He is often in error and I
> feel it's my responsibility to correct those errors, which had caused
> him to develop resentment, etc.
>
>
> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:%23HjZELfCJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> There's a balance to be struck. Of course a heavily fragmented disk
>>> will endure more wear, but overuse of defrag will do the same.
>>>
>>> And of course fewer disks wear out due to excessive defragging. It's
>>> more the opposite. The vast majority of them are of the first type
>>> -- not enough defragging, rather than too much. But that doesn't
>>> make my statement ridiculous. It's a true statement.
>>
>> In reality there are so many other variables involved in these
>> scenarios that generalizations can be made but that's about all. I
>> seriously doubt the two camps here actually cover the reality of
>> disk failure. One would be hard pressed to even get empirical
>> evidence of either case. In my experience the reasons for disk
>> failures have ranged from worn out bearings to dust (broken seals) to
>> a platter's head failure to head misalignments due to rough
>> handling, to ... you name it. Then that takes you into areas such
>> as whether it's best to leave the disk spinning or shut it down
>> during periods of non-use, etc. etc. etc.. I've never seen one that
>> indicated the problem was attributed to excessive head movement of
>> any kind where the head just wasn't able to move; something you can
>> easily hear in nearly 100% of the drives ever made. Not trying to do
>> an ego boost for myself here; just trying to
>> indicate that it's sort of a moot point about defrag or not from a
>> mechanical viewpoint. As long as the hermetic seal remains in tact,
>> there should be little to wear out except for grease moving out of
>> its intended place and not getting used, which IME has always been
>> what crashes disks early in their lives. Somewhere I have a white
>> paper on this from some lab but I can't find it now of course!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Twayne
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message
>>> news:EqBtk.19431$jI5.568@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>> That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Granted, disks wear
>>>> out. However, as a product, they have a life expectancy.
>>>> If a disk fails chances are it won't be because of defragging. Did
>>>> it ever occur to you that there could be MORE wear if it is NOT
>>>> defragged? "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>>>> news:uTcPTxJCJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> The joke doesn't apply. Unnecessary defragging will simply wear
>>>>> the disk out faster for no good reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>> http://grystmill.com
>>>>>
>>>>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:OcpUStJCJHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Penorama wrote:
>>>>>>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run
>>>>>>> Scandisk and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer
>>>>>>> spick and span. Does it still apply to these days of Windows XP
>>>>>>> and Vista? As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance
>>>>>>> measures every
>>>>>>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present day
>>>>>>> software environment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Joke shortened]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish
>>>>>> theater around the turn of the last century.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out:
>>>>>> "Give him an enema!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it can't
>>>>>> hurt."

Gary S. Terhune

I liked working in a lab for a couple of years. City water testing and
agricultural testing were the daily grind, but we also had a regular
contract pulling apart 6' lengths of #18 2.25" dia. rebar. 2' between the
jaws, dial-gauges all over the place until it suddenly stretched a foot.
Getting all the gauges off and then finishing the job.That was one honkin'
machine, <g>. When it broke, it shook the neighborhood harder than slamming
freight trains in the yard across the street. Took 425,000 to 450,000 total
pounds, IIRC.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:%23wqVs2iCJHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Nah, perish the though of my trying to say anything doesn't play a role in
> ... whatever. It's all connected of course and as soon as you try to say
> always or never, the gremlins and Murphys will come scrambling in from
> every orfice and totally negate any recent well intentioned
> allegations<g>.
> As you say, it's all generalizations unless we're lucky enough to work
> in a lab that specializes in such things or at least have access to some
> of their records, many of which are questionable at best anyway.
> Actually, if you've ever disassembled any hard drives carefully enough,
> it's amazing the heads manage to live as long as they do, buried in
> amongst the flying platters and all with what appears at least to me, to
> be very flimsy physical structures. At least the magnets are a blast to
> play with<g>!
>
> I agree with everything you said; no arguement at all in any way. I think
> my reaction was more to the point that the discussion seemed to be
> assuming that there was only that one single failure mechanism that meant
> anything and I wanted to point out that it wasn't going to go anywhere
> useful;
>
> As for mr unknown, or ms, whatever it may be, some just feel a need to
> grasp for their lack of power in the relatively safe ehter of the 'net.
> There's quite a mix of ego, personality and covert power plays on the
> groups but they're mostly harmless beings<g>.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Twayne
>
>
>> Thanks for the elucidation, but it seems to me that you're just
>> describing the ways in which disks wear out. Are you claiming that
>> the amount of use, specifically the amount of head movement, does not
>> play any role in causing at least some of those issues to arise,
>> subsequently leading to failure? Speaking, here, of disks that aren't
>> essentially DOA? Ones that have been in use for some time? I would
>> imagine that bearing failure or seals gone bad would lead to the
>> highest proportion of failures, failures that could derive from
>> simply idling for five years or whatever, but other types of failure
>> surely derive from actual use, as opposed to spinning idly, do they
>> not?
>> Of course I was making a generalization, as was everyone else in the
>> thread except Unknown, who has a developed a hobby that consists of
>> seeing if he can catch me in an error. He is often in error and I
>> feel it's my responsibility to correct those errors, which had caused
>> him to develop resentment, etc.
>>
>>
>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23HjZELfCJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> There's a balance to be struck. Of course a heavily fragmented disk
>>>> will endure more wear, but overuse of defrag will do the same.
>>>>
>>>> And of course fewer disks wear out due to excessive defragging. It's
>>>> more the opposite. The vast majority of them are of the first type
>>>> -- not enough defragging, rather than too much. But that doesn't
>>>> make my statement ridiculous. It's a true statement.
>>>
>>> In reality there are so many other variables involved in these
>>> scenarios that generalizations can be made but that's about all. I
>>> seriously doubt the two camps here actually cover the reality of
>>> disk failure. One would be hard pressed to even get empirical
>>> evidence of either case. In my experience the reasons for disk
>>> failures have ranged from worn out bearings to dust (broken seals) to a
>>> platter's head failure to head misalignments due to rough
>>> handling, to ... you name it. Then that takes you into areas such
>>> as whether it's best to leave the disk spinning or shut it down
>>> during periods of non-use, etc. etc. etc.. I've never seen one that
>>> indicated the problem was attributed to excessive head movement of
>>> any kind where the head just wasn't able to move; something you can
>>> easily hear in nearly 100% of the drives ever made. Not trying to do an
>>> ego boost for myself here; just trying to
>>> indicate that it's sort of a moot point about defrag or not from a
>>> mechanical viewpoint. As long as the hermetic seal remains in tact,
>>> there should be little to wear out except for grease moving out of
>>> its intended place and not getting used, which IME has always been
>>> what crashes disks early in their lives. Somewhere I have a white
>>> paper on this from some lab but I can't find it now of course!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Twayne
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message
>>>> news:EqBtk.19431$jI5.568@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>>> That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Granted, disks wear
>>>>> out. However, as a product, they have a life expectancy.
>>>>> If a disk fails chances are it won't be because of defragging. Did
>>>>> it ever occur to you that there could be MORE wear if it is NOT
>>>>> defragged? "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uTcPTxJCJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> The joke doesn't apply. Unnecessary defragging will simply wear
>>>>>> the disk out faster for no good reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>> http://grystmill.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:OcpUStJCJHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Penorama wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run
>>>>>>>> Scandisk and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer
>>>>>>>> spick and span. Does it still apply to these days of Windows XP
>>>>>>>> and Vista? As a matter of fact I carry out these maintenance
>>>>>>>> measures every
>>>>>>>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present day
>>>>>>>> software environment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Joke shortened]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish
>>>>>>> theater around the turn of the last century.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out:
>>>>>>> "Give him an enema!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it can't
>>>>>>> hurt."
>
>
>

Twayne

> I liked working in a lab for a couple of years. City water testing and
> agricultural testing were the daily grind, but we also had a regular
> contract pulling apart 6' lengths of #18 2.25" dia. rebar. 2' between
> the jaws, dial-gauges all over the place until it suddenly stretched
> a foot. Getting all the gauges off and then finishing the job.That
> was one honkin' machine, <g>. When it broke, it shook the
> neighborhood harder than slamming freight trains in the yard across
> the street. Took 425,000 to 450,000 total pounds, IIRC.

Ouch! That took a couple of decent sized machines! Sounds like fun the
first couple of times at least.

Cheers,


>
>
> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:%23wqVs2iCJHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Nah, perish the though of my trying to say anything doesn't play a
>> role in ... whatever. It's all connected of course and as soon as
>> you try to say always or never, the gremlins and Murphys will come
>> scrambling in from every orfice and totally negate any recent well
>> intentioned allegations<g>.
>> As you say, it's all generalizations unless we're lucky enough to
>> work in a lab that specializes in such things or at least have
>> access to some of their records, many of which are questionable at
>> best anyway. Actually, if you've ever disassembled any hard drives
>> carefully enough, it's amazing the heads manage to live as long as
>> they do, buried in amongst the flying platters and all with what
>> appears at least to me, to be very flimsy physical structures. At
>> least the magnets are a blast to play with<g>!
>>
>> I agree with everything you said; no arguement at all in any way. I
>> think my reaction was more to the point that the discussion seemed
>> to be assuming that there was only that one single failure mechanism
>> that meant anything and I wanted to point out that it wasn't going
>> to go anywhere useful;
>>
>> As for mr unknown, or ms, whatever it may be, some just feel a need
>> to grasp for their lack of power in the relatively safe ehter of the
>> 'net. There's quite a mix of ego, personality and covert power plays
>> on the groups but they're mostly harmless beings<g>.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Twayne
>>
>>
>>> Thanks for the elucidation, but it seems to me that you're just
>>> describing the ways in which disks wear out. Are you claiming that
>>> the amount of use, specifically the amount of head movement, does
>>> not play any role in causing at least some of those issues to arise,
>>> subsequently leading to failure? Speaking, here, of disks that
>>> aren't essentially DOA? Ones that have been in use for some time? I
>>> would imagine that bearing failure or seals gone bad would lead to
>>> the highest proportion of failures, failures that could derive from
>>> simply idling for five years or whatever, but other types of failure
>>> surely derive from actual use, as opposed to spinning idly, do they
>>> not?
>>> Of course I was making a generalization, as was everyone else in the
>>> thread except Unknown, who has a developed a hobby that consists of
>>> seeing if he can catch me in an error. He is often in error and I
>>> feel it's my responsibility to correct those errors, which had
>>> caused him to develop resentment, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23HjZELfCJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> There's a balance to be struck. Of course a heavily fragmented
>>>>> disk will endure more wear, but overuse of defrag will do the
>>>>> same. And of course fewer disks wear out due to excessive
>>>>> defragging.
>>>>> It's more the opposite. The vast majority of them are of the
>>>>> first type -- not enough defragging, rather than too much. But
>>>>> that doesn't make my statement ridiculous. It's a true statement.
>>>>
>>>> In reality there are so many other variables involved in these
>>>> scenarios that generalizations can be made but that's about all. I
>>>> seriously doubt the two camps here actually cover the reality of
>>>> disk failure. One would be hard pressed to even get empirical
>>>> evidence of either case. In my experience the reasons for disk
>>>> failures have ranged from worn out bearings to dust (broken seals)
>>>> to a platter's head failure to head misalignments due to rough
>>>> handling, to ... you name it. Then that takes you into areas such
>>>> as whether it's best to leave the disk spinning or shut it down
>>>> during periods of non-use, etc. etc. etc.. I've never seen one that
>>>> indicated the problem was attributed to excessive head movement of
>>>> any kind where the head just wasn't able to move; something you can
>>>> easily hear in nearly 100% of the drives ever made. Not trying to
>>>> do an ego boost for myself here; just trying to
>>>> indicate that it's sort of a moot point about defrag or not from a
>>>> mechanical viewpoint. As long as the hermetic seal remains in
>>>> tact, there should be little to wear out except for grease moving
>>>> out of its intended place and not getting used, which IME has
>>>> always been
>>>> what crashes disks early in their lives. Somewhere I have a white
>>>> paper on this from some lab but I can't find it now of course!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Twayne
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message
>>>>> news:EqBtk.19431$jI5.568@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>> That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Granted, disks wear
>>>>>> out. However, as a product, they have a life expectancy.
>>>>>> If a disk fails chances are it won't be because of defragging.
>>>>>> Did it ever occur to you that there could be MORE wear if it is
>>>>>> NOT defragged? "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:uTcPTxJCJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> The joke doesn't apply. Unnecessary defragging will simply wear
>>>>>>> the disk out faster for no good reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>> http://grystmill.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:OcpUStJCJHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> Penorama wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run
>>>>>>>>> Scandisk and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer
>>>>>>>>> spick and span. Does it still apply to these days of Windows
>>>>>>>>> XP and Vista? As a matter of fact I carry out these
>>>>>>>>> maintenance measures every
>>>>>>>>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present
>>>>>>>>> day software environment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Joke shortened]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish
>>>>>>>> theater around the turn of the last century.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out:
>>>>>>>> "Give him an enema!"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it
>>>>>>>> can't hurt."

Gary S. Terhune

Just a lot of steel and hydraulics.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:%23wxgWavCJHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> I liked working in a lab for a couple of years. City water testing and
>> agricultural testing were the daily grind, but we also had a regular
>> contract pulling apart 6' lengths of #18 2.25" dia. rebar. 2' between
>> the jaws, dial-gauges all over the place until it suddenly stretched
>> a foot. Getting all the gauges off and then finishing the job.That
>> was one honkin' machine, <g>. When it broke, it shook the
>> neighborhood harder than slamming freight trains in the yard across
>> the street. Took 425,000 to 450,000 total pounds, IIRC.
>
> Ouch! That took a couple of decent sized machines! Sounds like fun the
> first couple of times at least.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>>
>>
>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23wqVs2iCJHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Nah, perish the though of my trying to say anything doesn't play a
>>> role in ... whatever. It's all connected of course and as soon as
>>> you try to say always or never, the gremlins and Murphys will come
>>> scrambling in from every orfice and totally negate any recent well
>>> intentioned allegations<g>.
>>> As you say, it's all generalizations unless we're lucky enough to
>>> work in a lab that specializes in such things or at least have
>>> access to some of their records, many of which are questionable at
>>> best anyway. Actually, if you've ever disassembled any hard drives
>>> carefully enough, it's amazing the heads manage to live as long as
>>> they do, buried in amongst the flying platters and all with what
>>> appears at least to me, to be very flimsy physical structures. At
>>> least the magnets are a blast to play with<g>!
>>>
>>> I agree with everything you said; no arguement at all in any way. I
>>> think my reaction was more to the point that the discussion seemed
>>> to be assuming that there was only that one single failure mechanism
>>> that meant anything and I wanted to point out that it wasn't going
>>> to go anywhere useful;
>>>
>>> As for mr unknown, or ms, whatever it may be, some just feel a need
>>> to grasp for their lack of power in the relatively safe ehter of the
>>> 'net. There's quite a mix of ego, personality and covert power plays
>>> on the groups but they're mostly harmless beings<g>.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Twayne
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the elucidation, but it seems to me that you're just
>>>> describing the ways in which disks wear out. Are you claiming that
>>>> the amount of use, specifically the amount of head movement, does
>>>> not play any role in causing at least some of those issues to arise,
>>>> subsequently leading to failure? Speaking, here, of disks that
>>>> aren't essentially DOA? Ones that have been in use for some time? I
>>>> would imagine that bearing failure or seals gone bad would lead to
>>>> the highest proportion of failures, failures that could derive from
>>>> simply idling for five years or whatever, but other types of failure
>>>> surely derive from actual use, as opposed to spinning idly, do they
>>>> not?
>>>> Of course I was making a generalization, as was everyone else in the
>>>> thread except Unknown, who has a developed a hobby that consists of
>>>> seeing if he can catch me in an error. He is often in error and I
>>>> feel it's my responsibility to correct those errors, which had
>>>> caused him to develop resentment, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23HjZELfCJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> There's a balance to be struck. Of course a heavily fragmented
>>>>>> disk will endure more wear, but overuse of defrag will do the
>>>>>> same. And of course fewer disks wear out due to excessive defragging.
>>>>>> It's more the opposite. The vast majority of them are of the
>>>>>> first type -- not enough defragging, rather than too much. But
>>>>>> that doesn't make my statement ridiculous. It's a true statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> In reality there are so many other variables involved in these
>>>>> scenarios that generalizations can be made but that's about all. I
>>>>> seriously doubt the two camps here actually cover the reality of
>>>>> disk failure. One would be hard pressed to even get empirical
>>>>> evidence of either case. In my experience the reasons for disk
>>>>> failures have ranged from worn out bearings to dust (broken seals)
>>>>> to a platter's head failure to head misalignments due to rough
>>>>> handling, to ... you name it. Then that takes you into areas such
>>>>> as whether it's best to leave the disk spinning or shut it down
>>>>> during periods of non-use, etc. etc. etc.. I've never seen one that
>>>>> indicated the problem was attributed to excessive head movement of
>>>>> any kind where the head just wasn't able to move; something you can
>>>>> easily hear in nearly 100% of the drives ever made. Not trying to
>>>>> do an ego boost for myself here; just trying to
>>>>> indicate that it's sort of a moot point about defrag or not from a
>>>>> mechanical viewpoint. As long as the hermetic seal remains in
>>>>> tact, there should be little to wear out except for grease moving
>>>>> out of its intended place and not getting used, which IME has always
>>>>> been
>>>>> what crashes disks early in their lives. Somewhere I have a white
>>>>> paper on this from some lab but I can't find it now of course!
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Twayne
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:EqBtk.19431$jI5.568@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>>> That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Granted, disks wear
>>>>>>> out. However, as a product, they have a life expectancy.
>>>>>>> If a disk fails chances are it won't be because of defragging.
>>>>>>> Did it ever occur to you that there could be MORE wear if it is
>>>>>>> NOT defragged? "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:uTcPTxJCJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> The joke doesn't apply. Unnecessary defragging will simply wear
>>>>>>>> the disk out faster for no good reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>>> http://grystmill.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:OcpUStJCJHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>> Penorama wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I've been told during Windows 98 days that it's good to run
>>>>>>>>>> Scandisk and Defragmentation regularly to keep the computer
>>>>>>>>>> spick and span. Does it still apply to these days of Windows
>>>>>>>>>> XP and Vista? As a matter of fact I carry out these
>>>>>>>>>> maintenance measures every
>>>>>>>>>> week, but would like to know their relevance in the present
>>>>>>>>>> day software environment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [Joke shortened]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doctor is leaning over a fallen actor on the stage of a Yiddish
>>>>>>>>> theater around the turn of the last century.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From the back of the balcony, a Yiddisha-mama voice cries out:
>>>>>>>>> "Give him an enema!"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The doctor stands and shouts back: "Madam, the actor is dead!"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Same voice from the balcony, a bit more sheepishly: "So, it
>>>>>>>>> can't hurt."
>
>
>