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

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Skybuck Flying, Mar 15, 2008.

  1. 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.
    Skybuck Flying, Mar 15, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:848d1$47db3243$541983fa$1.nb.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.
    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Mar 15, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. > 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.storagecraft.com
    Maxim S. Shatskih, Mar 15, 2008
    #3
  4. > 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

    http://www.storagecraft.com
    Maxim S. Shatskih, Mar 15, 2008
    #4
  5. The wiki, as allways:

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

    has valuable info.


    Tony. . .





    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:848d1$47db3243$541983fa$1.nb.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.
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Mar 15, 2008
    #5
  6. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:848d1$47db3243$541983fa$1.nb.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.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Alexander Grigoriev, Mar 15, 2008
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Experienced but Undocumented

    Durability of optical mice

    Experienced but Undocumented, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    478
    Gary G. Taylor
    Jul 15, 2003
  2. poldi
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,990
  3. shipwreck

    Newbie question about Nikon durability.

    shipwreck, Dec 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,568
    ajmburke
    Jun 2, 2010
  4. Mr. Nobody

    Canon IS Durability

    Mr. Nobody, Jan 25, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    355
    Jim Davis
    Feb 10, 2004
  5. CiscoSpares.com
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    455
    CiscoSpares.com
    Jul 23, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page