Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > NTFS uses least used clusters ? (Cluster durability/lifetime ?)

Reply
Thread Tools

NTFS uses least used clusters ? (Cluster durability/lifetime ?)

 
 
Skybuck Flying
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2008
Hello,

Somebody believes NTFS works as follows:

When NTFS needs to write new data to the disk it finds the clusters which
have been least used.

This would ensure longer disk life.

If NTFS simply re-used the same clusters over and over and over again this
would lead to early drive failure (???).

Is there any thruth in this or is this internet/usenet myth ? Me wonders...

(It does so via a list of clusters somebody said.)

(Freeed clusters would be added to the back of the list)
(Needed clusters would be removed from the front of the list)

Thus this would automatically cycle the clusters somewhat.

Sounds plausible.

Bye,
Skybuck.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2008
This has to be a misconception turned 'myth'. The used/unused clusters are
magnetic particles that are actually kept alive by use - if not periodically
revived by rewrites, they will fade.

The HD head arrangements are worn out by use, and fragmentation aggregates
movement!

If I remember, NTFS is designed to use the smallest free space available for
writing new data to disk. Microsoft has actually fostered it's own 'myth',
in saying the Filesystem isn't likely to fragment as much as FAT. In
reallity NTFS is happier fragmenting than not, but it's design is such that
it doesn't care (performancewise) if it is fragmented or not, until it
becomes nearly full, then it grinds to a halt. There are, however,
filesystems around that really doesn't fragment as much, and therefore also
doesn't lose performance as a result of that. But NTFS doesn't care!

NTFS, primarily, is a SAFE filesystem, and it is miles ahead of FAT. It my
not be the best, but the 'best' is really allways determined by the user's
personal needs!


Tony. . .


"Skybuck Flying" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:848d1$47db3243$541983fa$(E-Mail Removed)1.n b.home.nl...
> Hello,
>
> Somebody believes NTFS works as follows:
>
> When NTFS needs to write new data to the disk it finds the clusters which
> have been least used.
>
> This would ensure longer disk life.
>
> If NTFS simply re-used the same clusters over and over and over again this
> would lead to early drive failure (???).
>
> Is there any thruth in this or is this internet/usenet myth ? Me

wonders...
>
> (It does so via a list of clusters somebody said.)
>
> (Freeed clusters would be added to the back of the list)
> (Needed clusters would be removed from the front of the list)
>
> Thus this would automatically cycle the clusters somewhat.
>
> Sounds plausible.
>
> Bye,
> Skybuck.
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Maxim S. Shatskih
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2008
> When NTFS needs to write new data to the disk it finds the clusters which
> have been least used.


From what I know, both NTFS and FAT use the circular allocation from the hint
value, which is initially just after the last allocated block and then advances
and wraps around the volume end during the mounted volume lifetime.

> This would ensure longer disk life.


Looks like lesser fragmentation is more important.

> If NTFS simply re-used the same clusters over and over and over again this
> would lead to early drive failure (???).


Yes, really ???

> Is there any thruth in this or is this internet/usenet myth ? Me wonders...


Looks like a myth.

> (It does so via a list of clusters somebody said.)


There are no lists of free clusters in FAT and NTFS, only the bitmap.

NTFS keeps the bitmap on disk, while FAT builds it in memory from the on-disk
FAT table, with FAT12/16, this is done once at mount time, with FAT32, this is
done chunk-by-chunk in runtime.

--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
http://www.storagecraft.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
Maxim S. Shatskih
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2008
> NTFS, primarily, is a SAFE filesystem, and it is miles ahead of FAT.

It's one of the world's oldest logging filesystems, which predates all open
source analogs and most UNIX logging filesystems (except the Veritas's ones).

--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
(E-Mail Removed)
http://www.storagecraft.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2008
The wiki, as allways:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS

has valuable info.


Tony. . .





"Tony Sperling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> This has to be a misconception turned 'myth'. The used/unused clusters are
> magnetic particles that are actually kept alive by use - if not

periodically
> revived by rewrites, they will fade.
>
> The HD head arrangements are worn out by use, and fragmentation aggregates
> movement!
>
> If I remember, NTFS is designed to use the smallest free space available

for
> writing new data to disk. Microsoft has actually fostered it's own 'myth',
> in saying the Filesystem isn't likely to fragment as much as FAT. In
> reallity NTFS is happier fragmenting than not, but it's design is such

that
> it doesn't care (performancewise) if it is fragmented or not, until it
> becomes nearly full, then it grinds to a halt. There are, however,
> filesystems around that really doesn't fragment as much, and therefore

also
> doesn't lose performance as a result of that. But NTFS doesn't care!
>
> NTFS, primarily, is a SAFE filesystem, and it is miles ahead of FAT. It my
> not be the best, but the 'best' is really allways determined by the user's
> personal needs!
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Skybuck Flying" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:848d1$47db3243$541983fa$(E-Mail Removed)1.n b.home.nl...
> > Hello,
> >
> > Somebody believes NTFS works as follows:
> >
> > When NTFS needs to write new data to the disk it finds the clusters

which
> > have been least used.
> >
> > This would ensure longer disk life.
> >
> > If NTFS simply re-used the same clusters over and over and over again

this
> > would lead to early drive failure (???).
> >
> > Is there any thruth in this or is this internet/usenet myth ? Me

> wonders...
> >
> > (It does so via a list of clusters somebody said.)
> >
> > (Freeed clusters would be added to the back of the list)
> > (Needed clusters would be removed from the front of the list)
> >
> > Thus this would automatically cycle the clusters somewhat.
> >
> > Sounds plausible.
> >
> > Bye,
> > Skybuck.
> >
> >

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Alexander Grigoriev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2008
It's not, in general, possible to avoid fragmentation in a generic case.
Even for a single user or writer, it's not generally possible to minimize
fragmentation. When a file is created, there is usually no hint whatsoever
how big it's going to grow. Even though ZwCreateFile can accept initial
allocation size argument, CreateFile doesn't pass it. Thus a particular
strategy to assigning initial place for multiple simultaneously open files
doesn't guarantee that a heavily used disk isn't going to get fragmented.

All that fragmentation issue becomes a non-issue, when you have a randomly
accessed database which occupies most of the volume.

"Tony Sperling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> This has to be a misconception turned 'myth'. The used/unused clusters are
> magnetic particles that are actually kept alive by use - if not
> periodically
> revived by rewrites, they will fade.
>
> The HD head arrangements are worn out by use, and fragmentation aggregates
> movement!
>
> If I remember, NTFS is designed to use the smallest free space available
> for
> writing new data to disk. Microsoft has actually fostered it's own 'myth',
> in saying the Filesystem isn't likely to fragment as much as FAT. In
> reallity NTFS is happier fragmenting than not, but it's design is such
> that
> it doesn't care (performancewise) if it is fragmented or not, until it
> becomes nearly full, then it grinds to a halt. There are, however,
> filesystems around that really doesn't fragment as much, and therefore
> also
> doesn't lose performance as a result of that. But NTFS doesn't care!
>
> NTFS, primarily, is a SAFE filesystem, and it is miles ahead of FAT. It my
> not be the best, but the 'best' is really allways determined by the user's
> personal needs!
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Skybuck Flying" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:848d1$47db3243$541983fa$(E-Mail Removed)1.n b.home.nl...
>> Hello,
>>
>> Somebody believes NTFS works as follows:
>>
>> When NTFS needs to write new data to the disk it finds the clusters which
>> have been least used.
>>
>> This would ensure longer disk life.
>>
>> If NTFS simply re-used the same clusters over and over and over again
>> this
>> would lead to early drive failure (???).
>>
>> Is there any thruth in this or is this internet/usenet myth ? Me

> wonders...
>>
>> (It does so via a list of clusters somebody said.)
>>
>> (Freeed clusters would be added to the back of the list)
>> (Needed clusters would be removed from the front of the list)
>>
>> Thus this would automatically cycle the clusters somewhat.
>>
>> Sounds plausible.
>>
>> Bye,
>> Skybuck.
>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need regular expression for at least 7 characters and at least 1 special chatacter AAaron123 ASP .Net 0 10-03-2008 01:25 PM
Least recently used (LRU) memory question kkk C Programming 3 03-05-2007 08:19 AM
Least recently used (LRU) memory question kkk C Programming 0 03-04-2007 04:30 PM
Creating a batch to determine if HD is NTFS if not format it NTFS Tech Computer Support 3 04-06-2004 06:19 PM
Re: Least used builtins? Sean 'Shaleh' Perry Python 2 07-05-2003 03:57 AM



Advertisments