For performance reasons alone it makes sence to have smaller pools then one very large one.
#DEFRAGGLER DEFRAG ABORTED NO FILES PLUS#
I have a 60gb SSD 58 usable which is just enough for OS plus its junk, paging file only needs 20gb. Even with my 640gb drive, without it being partitioned it would take like 30+ hours to fully defrag the drive, now it takes maybe 1/4 that time as only certain things get fragmented and only in thier own partition, not to mention, the paging file for performance reasons is quite important, if it fragments, which it will, it is far better constrained to its own partition so it takes care of itself, and you are only really giving enough space as needed(and for me, saving alot of space for other things, as less gets fragmented over time, which does chew space up, defragging 1 per 6mths vs every other week saves alot of time and saves in the gb of space) Even just 2 partitions is better then none, instead of say 3tb in one large block you can have dual 1.5tb blocks which speeds everything up.īut hey, if you don`t like them for whatever reason, thats fine, it was a suggestion based on what you were originally saying. You want things as close as possible to the top or leading edge of the disc for speed purposes. The whole point of partitioning is to keep things in the fastest zones so you do not have to worry about things going all over the disk which by far will slow things down, it makes orgainizing alot easier as certain things only go in certain portions of the disk accordingly, and when it comes to the defragging, it is by far faster as the defragger only defrags the portion of the disc it needs to.
#DEFRAGGLER DEFRAG ABORTED NO FILES WINDOWS#
Windows fragments things as it opens them and will move them around, hence the defragging(SSD do not have to worry about this, as they are built to move things accordingly to the firmware TRIM and garage collection among other things)
? I am trying to understand what you are saying overall, but am not.
0 kommentar(er)
