1 |
Kai Krakow <hurikhan77@×××××.com> writes: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Am Wed, 20 Jan 2016 01:46:29 +0100 |
4 |
> schrieb lee <lee@××××××××.de>: |
5 |
> |
6 |
>> The time before, it wasn't |
7 |
>> a VM but a very slow machine, and that also took a week. You can have |
8 |
>> the fastest machine on the world and Windoze always manages to bring |
9 |
>> it down to a slowness we wouldn't have accepted even 20 years ago. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> This is mainly an artifact of Windows updates destroying locality of |
12 |
> data pretty fast and mainly a problem when running on spinning rust. |
13 |
> DLLs and data files needed for booting or starting specific |
14 |
> software become spread wide across the hard disk. Fragmentation isn't |
15 |
> the issue here - NTFS is pretty good at keeping it low. Still, the |
16 |
> right defragmentation tool will help you: |
17 |
|
18 |
You can't very well defragment the disk while updates are being |
19 |
performed. Updating goes like this: |
20 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
+ install from an installation media |
23 |
|
24 |
+ tell the machine to update |
25 |
|
26 |
+ come back next day and find out that it's still looking for updates or |
27 |
trying to download them or wants to be restarted |
28 |
|
29 |
+ restart the machine |
30 |
|
31 |
+ start over with the second step until all updates have been installed |
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
That usually takes a week. When it's finally done, disable all |
35 |
automatic updates because if you don't, the machine usually becomes |
36 |
unusable when it installs another update. |
37 |
|
38 |
It doesn't matter if you have the fastest machine on the world or some |
39 |
old hardware you wouldn't actually use anymore, it always takes about a |
40 |
week. |
41 |
|
42 |
> I always recommend staying away from the 1000 types of "tuning tools", |
43 |
> they actually make it worse and take away your chance of properly |
44 |
> optimizing the on-disk file layout. |
45 |
|
46 |
I'm not worried about that. One of the VMs is still on an SSD, so I |
47 |
turned off defragging. The other VMs that use files on a hard disk |
48 |
defrag themselves regularly over night. |
49 |
|
50 |
> And I always recommend using MyDefrag and using its system disk |
51 |
> defrag profile to reorder the files in your hard disk. It takes ages |
52 |
> the first time it runs but it brings back your system to almost out of |
53 |
> the box boot and software startup time performance. |
54 |
|
55 |
That hasn't been an issue with any of the VMs yet. |
56 |
|
57 |
> It uses some very clever ideas to place files into groups and into |
58 |
> proper order - other than using file mod and access times like other |
59 |
> defrag tools do (which even make the problem worse by doing so because |
60 |
> this destroys locality of data even more). |
61 |
|
62 |
I've never heard of MyDefrag, I might try it out. Does it make updating |
63 |
any faster? |
64 |
|
65 |
> But even SSDs can use _proper_ defragmentation from time to time for |
66 |
> increased lifetime and performance (this is due to how the FTL works |
67 |
> and because erase blocks are huge, I won't get into detail unless |
68 |
> someone asks). This is why mydefrag also supports flash optimization. |
69 |
> It works by moving as few files as possible while coalescing free space |
70 |
> into big chunks which in turn relaxes pressure on the FTL and allows to |
71 |
> have more free and continuous erase blocks which reduces early flash |
72 |
> chip wear. A filled SSD with long usage history can certainly gain back |
73 |
> some performance from this. |
74 |
|
75 |
How does it improve performance? It seems to me that, for practical |
76 |
use, almost all of the better performance with SSDs is due to reduced |
77 |
latency. And IIUC, it doesn't matter for the latency where data is |
78 |
stored on an SSD. If its performance degrades over time when data is |
79 |
written to it, the SSD sucks, and the manufacturer should have done a |
80 |
better job. Why else would I buy an SSD. If it needs to reorganise the |
81 |
data stored on it, the firmware should do that. |