Hi Walter,

SNIP
>I think not many people see the use of such a tool which mainly applies to databases and it's tables (and maybe a limited number of other sort of files), so I don't think that any sotware manufacturer would see any $$ in the product.
>
>And of course, the circumstances of *good* fragmentation are limited:
>- Systems mainly used for adding data and querying and analyzing only the most recent data.
>- Heavy loaded system
>- A significant number of concurrent users using the fragmented data.
>- If the psysical disk is also has to serve processes which access other parts of the disk, the benefit might be NULL.
>- and last but not least: This is all theory we don't know how disc caches jump in here.
>

Agreed that most benefit is for database-type products/apps and any apps written "big iron style" (my term) with regular updating of larger sequential files.

But. . . since MS heavily markets SQL Server and since it is supported only on NT and MS does everything that it can to make SQL Server the fastest and most reliable tool of its kind (focus on 'fastest' for this argument) I had hope that NT might have a way to accomplish "controlled fragmentation". But, as others have confirmed, it does not.

Yes, cacheing must be helpful regardless, but:
1) I'm not too sure that SQL Server is all that fond of it;
2) Physically faster access, along with less stress on HDs, is always a good thing.

Cheers and my you have a long HAPPY married life,

Jim


>
>>good to see you back
>
>Thanks, I've been in Turkey and Greece, but did not experience any earthquakes. After a week, I really began to miss my friends here on the UT. I'm glad to be back (as a married man now).
>
>
>Walter,