[–] [deleted] 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] dalek_caan 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I'm pretty sure the performance hit is minimal. On the other hand, the files can suffer from being extremely fragmented, but still, just let the windows' utility doing its job and you are good to go. Nowadays you really don't need to care about Defrag.

0
1

[–] Gravspeed [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

In extreme cases there can be a measurable, but probably not perceptible, amount of performance degradation as the file table for each file grows since it will take (slightly) more time to load the location of more fragments.

Again the reason for defragging an ssd has nothing to do with performance.

1
-1

[–] BahamutSalad 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The windows utility will not auto-defrag SSD's. The only time it will happen is when done manually.

edit: wrong

0
0

[–] Gravspeed [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's not about performance

0
6

[–] Karkrash66 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Uh, OP, isn't the article stating that all necessary de-fragmentation of SSDs is automatically handled by Windows? Therefore you should follow traditional logic and not manually defrag an SSD?

0
2

[–] Gravspeed [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Basically yes. But you should also not disable the automatic defrag like a lot of people recommend since Windows does recognize the ssd and uses a much higher threshold to determine if it should actually defrag.

0
1

[–] Karkrash66 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Huh TIL, I didn't even realize you were able to toggle that.

0
3

[–] damaged 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Wow, I learned something today, thanks.

0
2

[–] Gamio 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Except every block of memory on a SSD should be read with approximately the same delay, there is no physical limitation the only limitations is the time it takes for the controller chip to do its magic. File system fragmentation doesn't matter one bit, what matters is the fact once you write to a block of flash memory you can't add more data without destroying the original which is why files might appear to be fragmented but its not important that those fragments are in any kind of order or grouped side by side for read performance.

TRIM is a kind of sub filesystem anti fragmentation tool but really just to prevent an inordinate amount of memory blocks having very small amounts of data and large blank spaces, defragging on top of TRIM would probably cause and endless cycle of reading, writing and rewriting of blocks for no ones benefit.

0
0

[–] Gravspeed [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You are partially correct. There is no perceptible performance degradation with fragmentation.

Trim prefers unused blocks to avoid having to erase first and that has the nice side effect of wearing the ssd more evenly.

The purpose of the defrag is to consolidate the files. An unfragmented file only requires a single entry in the file table. A file in 10 fragments requires 10 entries.

So if you have 1000 files in 1000 fragments each you have 1000000 file table entries. Eventually you well run out of space for more entries and write operations will fail.

Performance has nothing to do with it.

Edit: correction of autocorrect

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Gravspeed [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

If you read the article... The file table is of finite size. If files get too fragmented you can run out of room to store fragment locations and write operations will fail.

Performance is not the reason to defrag. Lowering the number of entries in the file table is.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] dalek_caan 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Sorry I wanted to reply this to /u/Tb03102