Mine in-line too, Vin...

>(I mainly posted my thoughts elsewhere, but I had two points to respond to below... In-Line)
>
>>>>I tried this in the CHATTER forum, but an absence of response prompts me to re-try here.
>>>>
>>>>Keeping in mind:
>>>>1) Modern Windows systems are multi-tasking systems.
>>>>2) Windows itself (and its components, like IE) make significant 'quiet' use of your HD space for all manner of files, large and small.
>>>>3) Other applications (MS Word for example) can use HD space 'quietly' too.
>>>>4) Modern HDs are fast, processors are faster yet, and RAM is plentiful.
>>>>... what hard facts are there to back up the axiom (it is essentially an axiom today) that fragmentation is bad?
>>>>
>>>>That fragmentation is bad is so prevalent a concept that I must be missing something obvious. What is it?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for any/all input on this issue.
>>>
>>>Jim,
>>>While disk fragmentation is not as bad anymore because of the speed of hardrives, file fragmentation still is a problem no matter what.
>>>
>>>If a file is found in multiple places on the hard drive then it takes more than one drive revolution to retrieve the file. Even if the disk spins at 10K, having to make as many revolutions as there are fragments (possibly 500+) will chew up resources. This is bad.
>>
>>Yes, I agree that that is bad. But really only in the case where the WHOLE FILE is wanted/needed for processing. Things like Word and Excel come to mind as such cases.
>>
>>Now what about a database, with lots of tables, where specifically, it is a rare thing indeed to read a whole file? Include in your consideration that it is common for a database application to 'need' a record from a few files at a time (thus usually implicating some .CDXs and often .FPTs too). Any change in that situation?
>>
>
>My assumption is that fragmentation can occur within a record... that the fragmentation is never so neat that it occurs right at the point of a record change.

I would assume this to be correct too. Further, I know for a fact that a full cluster WILL be taken up, even if the (balance) of the file involved needs only 1 more byte. In a FAT system on a big HD, this can mean 65,534 bytes 'wasted'!!

>
>>By the way, my guess is that a Word or Excel file hardly has the chance to become fragmented because the whole is done in a single write, so there is virtually no chance for something else to intrude while it is written.
>>
>
>Well, what if you are trying to save a 2 mg file that you recently edited, increasing it in size from a 1 Mg file -- how does the OS choose where to start (I really don't know....). I figure there are three possibilities:
>
>1) It starts where the file previously started.. in which case there certainly could be fragmentation because there may not be a mg of additional available space at the end of the initial file.
>2) It doesn't care where the old file used to "live" and just tries to save somewhere... and starts at the first free sector it finds. Again, no guarantee that there'll be enough space.
>3) It looks for a chunk of contiguous space, and if it finds it, uses it; if not, see #2.
>
>Perhaps I am wrong... but my assumption was always number 1.

Well #1 is particularly unlikely because that would jeopardize the old file needlessly.

I think your #3 has the best CHANCE to be correct (at least in more recent Windows versions), but this is one of those facts that I'd like to learn FOR SURE. I hope that a person who knows comes forward.

Keep thinking on this. I think the final result could be important. Thanks again.



>
>>thanks (and hoping for more).
>>
>>>
>>>Just my $0.02.