Hi, although at Simforum's I've read the thread concerning the optimization of FSX installation, I have an observation to do:wouldn't O&O defrag zones be useful, considering the huge number of libraries and textures files?wouldn't FSX be better performing (with faster defragging), by relocating the thousands of libraries files into ACCESS priority zone(2), and leaving only the application files into zone 1?thanks

Whether right or wrong the common view of FSX is that the OS and FSX looks for files in order by name so the deal with O&O is that it will defrag and sort by name. Once sorted by name it reduces the access time required to locate the file it is looking for. As far as I know FSX will not look for files by zone.By the way, if you have FSX on an SSD then you do not to perform any kind of defrag.

The deal with HDD zones is that as you move out towards the edge of the platter the track length increases, therefore you can store more data. Since the angular velocity (rotational speed) for all tracks is constant, it follows that the outer tracks with more data have a porportionally higher data transfer rate. Therefore if behooves the simmer to move OS and FSX files onto the outer tracks for best performance.Current operating systems all index directory entries for faster file access, therefore the physical order of the file entries in a directory is no longer relevant.Cheers,- jahman.

Hi, although at Simforum's I've read the thread concerning the optimization of FSX installation, I have an observation to do:wouldn't O&O defrag zones be useful, considering the huge number of libraries and textures files?wouldn't FSX be better performing (with faster defragging), by relocating the thousands of libraries files into ACCESS priority zone(2), and leaving only the application files into zone 1?thanks

I use version 14 and have never attempted to put FSX in zones. Reason being two-fold: 1) I have a dedicated FSX drive so in essance I already have a zone. 2)I could be wrong here, but O&O doesn't give you an option to put applications in zone 1. It only places OS files in zone 1. So that only leaves you zone 2 and even then you can not simply drop the entire FSX file into it you have to assign each file.For me a $60 HDD is a whole lot easier. I personally would not mess around with trying to put FSX into a zone.

Current operating systems all index directory entries for faster file access, therefore the physical order of the file entries in a directory is no longer relevant.Cheers,- jahman.

I find your comment interesting, can you post a link to an technical article or paper that proves the physical order of files are not relevant anymore.If you have FSX on its own drive then there is no need for a zone. While all people can not afford a dedicated FSX drive it is common knowledge that FSX should be on a dedicated drive, then there would not be a need for a zone since FSX would occupy the outer edge of the platter. As you point out it is the fasted place to be.

I use version 14 and have never attempted to put FSX in zones. Reason being two-fold: 1) I have a dedicated FSX drive so in essance I already have a zone. 2)I could be wrong here, but O&O doesn't give you an option to put applications in zone 1. It only places OS files in zone 1. So that only leaves you zone 2 and even then you can not simply drop the entire FSX file into it you have to assign each file.For me a $60 HDD is a whole lot easier. I personally would not mess around with trying to put FSX into a zone.

I'm sorry I've missed to be more specific: I have FSX on a separate drive, yet my question arises because there are thousands of files being moved everytime there is a change made with REX, ASA; FEX, GEX, UTX, and so onthence I wonder whether there could be an advantage by having a "consolidated" section of FSX in zone 1 (assigning FSX folder to it), meanwhile the files that are always "on the move" being relocated to access priority zone 2 (assigning all libraries folders to zone 2)....I'm sorry again, I'm not an expert, I'm trying to figure out whether O&O options could give a better FSX performance, ot to simply forget about zonesjahman,I'd really like to understand what you wrote can you point me in the direction of a better understanding? thanks

I'm sorry I've missed to be more specific: I have FSX on a separate drive, yet my question arises because there are thousands of files being moved everytime there is a change made with REX, ASA; FEX, GEX, UTX, and so onthence I wonder whether there could be an advantage by having a "consolidated" section of FSX in zone 1 (assigning FSX folder to it), meanwhile the files that are always "on the move" being relocated to access priority zone 2 (assigning all libraries folders to zone 2)....I'm sorry again, I'm not an expert, I'm trying to figure out whether O&O options could give a better FSX performance, ot to simply forget about zonesjahman,I'd really like to understand what you wrote can you point me in the direction of a better understanding? thanks

This maybe something that you will just need to test and see if you have any noticeable changes. UTX has to be in the FSX folder, so it can not be moved. GEX and FEX can be placed on separate drives so you could put them in Zone 2. I do not use REX or ASA so I can not comment. REX and FEX perform the same function so you do not need both. REX has more features than FEX, choose the one that you like best.If you decide to try this I would be interested in the results. It would also be interesting if you defragged your FSX drive by name and noted your performance before you changed over to zones, then compare the two.

I find your comment interesting, can you post a link to an technical article or paper that proves the physical order of files are not relevant anymore.

Actually I'd be interested in seeing one that does say it makes a difference. any links?

Actually I'd be interested in seeing one that does say it makes a difference. any links?

None that I know of, in other forums it seems to be the accepted practice as it relates to FSX only to defrag by name to get the best performance out of FSX, but I have never seen any offical benchmarks or anything else. It is what NickN always recommends in all of his OS and FSX tuning guides.I can tell you that with the three different PC's that I have had FSX installed on after a O&O name defrag FSX was a lot smoother and more fluid. I can not really say there was any FPS improvement, but it was a lot smoother and more fluid, but this is just my experience.Jahman said that the OS uses indexing and that maybe true, but I would think that FSX is looking for files and not be asking the OS to look. I do not know how this all works, but I would think that FSX looks for its own files and would not ask the OS to tell FSX where the files were that FSX was looking for and then go retrieve them, seems to me that would take even more time for FSX to keep asking the OS to locate files.Do you use any defrag of any kind, if so what do you prefer?

Actually, do a search on NickN's posts. He provides documentation as to why the name defrag works for FS and as to why the zone feature of O&O is not a good idea. Actually I don't recall if he said it was NOT a good idea or just NOT effective - but the bottom line was:Name defrag = goodZones = not goodI definitely recall reading his posts but didn't link to them. Go back a year or two.Vic

Actually, do a search on NickN's posts. He provides documentation as to why the name defrag works for FS and as to why the zone feature of O&O is not a good idea. Actually I don't recall if he said it was NOT a good idea or just NOT effective - but the bottom line was:Name defrag = goodZones = not goodI definitely recall reading his posts but didn't link to them. Go back a year or two.Vic

Here is Nick's reasoning regarding FSX and name degrags, a pretty good read. There maybe others, but this is what I found doing a quick search over at simfourms.http://www.simforums.com/Forums/oo-defragment-pro_topic30113_post172254.html?KW=why+name+defrag#172254Here is what Nick thinks of O&O and their addition of zones, this was interesting to read. Since I have FSX on a decicated drive I will stick with name defrags.http://www.simforums.com/Forums/oo-defrag-12-professional-question-for_topic31650_post181503.html?KW=why+name+defrag#181503

I'm sorry I've missed to be more specific: I have FSX on a separate drive, yet my question arises because there are thousands of files being moved everytime there is a change made with REX, ASA; FEX, GEX, UTX, and so on

My FSX drive hardly ever frags. GEX, UTX, ASE, do not change files ever after install. FEX or REX only change if you are installing new clouds, water e.t.c. They do not change after initial install unless you change them.

Current operating systems all index directory entries for faster file access, therefore the physical order of the file entries in a directory is no longer relevant.Cheers,- jahman.

My indexing is turned off. There is a big difference to the sytem searching a directory for a file location and then sending the head seeking for that file versus having the BGL sequentially ordered to reduce head movement.

I'm with Gary on this one. The indexing is only there for the search function, the search function is not used to "locate" the actual file, just sort through the properties/details. So if you didn't know the parent directory the search function would come in handy. The only technique I'm aware of that will reliably speed up transfers is using something along the lines of the compiled .BGL format. Another technique is to use a non blocking call so your program is never "stuck" waiting or wasting FPS, when the file is completed loading it'll make a callback to a recieving function that will signify the read is done, and in the case of a .BGL start breaking it apart in memory to get the individual files that are needed. Now if the files in the FAT/NTFS were stored in a sorted array then yes a binary search based on name would be optimal. However the most important thing is that the file/directory tables are able to grow in size on demand, an array would not be capable of doing this without wasting a lot of "empty slots".Anyways just my take on file operations... and I use SpeedDisk btw.... found it was the best when doing subsequent defrags.