There is no advantage in where the file is on the disk. Linear velocity is greater at the disk edge, but the circumference is greater too. So the time to find a given file depends on angular velocity not linear velocity. If the file has just passed under the head it will take a whole revolution to read it.

 

I'm not a hard drive engineer, but I would have guessed that each sector in the hard drive is a constant size, not dependant on the radial distance from the centre. That is, there are more sectors on the outer edges of the hard drive -> for a given angular velocity, more sectors will be passed over per unit time.

 

 

Correct for the speed of positioning the head, but not for the speed of reading the data (once positioned).

 

To add to the confusion(?), some defraggers are capable of "consolidating" files, so files which are read one after the other will be positioned "in line" during defragmentation. This is supposed to decrease repositioning time.

 

True, the actual time to read the sector is a separate consideration (only real way to optimize that is to minimize the number of sectors that your file is spread over).

 

The defraggers arrange files in alphabetical order, under the assumption that large files (textures, etc.) will be loaded in alphabetical order. If it does, then great; if it reads randomly, then oh well; if it reads in reverse alphabetical order, then you're in trouble

Guys,

 

how about you let the smart people over at Seagate and Western Digital figure that out? 

 

 

Guys,

 

how about you let the smart people over at Seagate and Western Digital figure that out?  

Gladly!

 

Can you Show me where they Support FSX needs please ;-)

 

 

I have one more last Argument:

 

Suppose you do things your way, but my guy is right.

You now have a 100% filled HDD, not NAME defragged that has poor Performance possibly causing stutters or blurry textures.

 

Suppose you do things my way, and you are right-

You then have a HDD that is 65% filled (I am talking about an FSX dedicated PC here again now, so no movies etc, only FSX addon)), and NAME defragged.

 In this case it has helped you nothing for FSX Performance nor did it make things worse.

Yes you did waste 35% free space.

 

I guess the user must select what risk he would rather take.

 

 

Can you Show me where they Support FSX needs please ;-)

 

Well they don't need to support FSX needs to tell you about read speeds, data density optimization, etc.

 

 

 

Suppose you do things your way, but my guy is right.
You now have a 100% filled HDD, not NAME defragged that has poor Performance possibly causing stutters or blurry textures.

 

Nobody is telling that you should have 100% full non-defragged drive. Defragmentation is essential in spinny style drives.

 

You won't be able to defrag at 100% full, but provided the disk in non-system disk, the data is properly defragged and aligned and the rest of the disk is filled to 100% by random data (lets say /dev/zero or /dev/random for you unix guys) then there is absolutely zero reason the disk should not deliver optimal performance.

You would want to keep some 10-20% empty in general use though, for reasons of paging, swapping and defragging. (general use assumes non-system disk used for random data and with swap and/or pagefile divided across disks)

 

 

 

You then have a HDD that is 65% filled (I am talking about an FSX dedicated PC here again now, so no movies etc, only FSX addon)), and NAME defragged.
 In this case it has helped you nothing for FSX Performance nor did it make things worse.
Yes you did waste 35% free space.

 

Yes you did waste 35% free space which means in long run you wasted a quarter of your moneys worth. With no tangible benefit.

 

You really would be better off investing in a smaller, but faster disk.

FSX is not I/O bound. Watch the seek light - it is rarely very busy during flight. And lots of data required is pre-loaded in any case.

 

De-fraggers are mostly a waste of time because they do not reduce access delays that you would notice.

"Nobody is telling that you should have 100% full non-defragged drive. Defragmentation is essential in spinny style drives."

 

But that is exactly the problem here.

 

My initial answere was to a guy who is asking how much space the PMDG 777 will take up on his HDD because he is almost full!

(read higher up in the thread)

 

To this I replied that it is adviced to not fill a HDD more than 65% for FSX purposes.

I personally would stick with that and have always done so in the past (before SSD).

 

 

You only would be better of with a smaller and faster disc....If you are correct that it does not matter to fill it to more than 65%.....but I think you are wrong.....so in my opinion you are not better of.

 

The problem with almost any hardware producers is that they dont know what FSX needs.

It is too old, they dont care, they dont test on FSX.

So if you are not a specialist and go to them with a question like "hey, for FSX, what HDD should I buy and how should I spread the data on it, they cant tell you that.

So I turn to someone who knows FSX inside out and is a hardware specialist.

Those people are rare to find I tell you!

 

Same as going to a hardware store here last year for my current FSX build.

They have no idea what FSX needs, so I ended up building and selecting part as recommended by someone who does know.

They allways assume that if you just make a gaming rig that play well with modern games that it will certainly run FSX well.

Wrong!

You dont need a top dog GPU for FSX.....well, it does help though

You dont need to overclock for FSX....well, it does help though

You dont need fast, low latency RAM for FSX.....well it does help though

SSD is no better than HDD.....well it does help though.

You can fill the HDD up to 80-90% with performance sensitive FSX data....well, I would not

FSX is not I/O bound. Watch the seek light - it is rarely very busy during flight. And lots of data required is pre-loaded in any case.

 

De-fraggers are mostly a waste of time because they do not reduce access delays that you would notice.

See again someone posting as if that is a fact.

 

Try putting FSX on your USB 2.0 harddrive.

Since it is all pre-loaded anyway that should not matter either then.

See again someone posting as if that is a fact.

 

Try putting FSX on your USB 2.0 harddrive.

Since it is all pre-loaded anyway that should not matter either then.

Richard did not state it as a fact, he stated his opinion based on his experience. Other people may find otherwise. I tend to agree with him as I had a badly fragmented drive but defragmenting it made no noticeable difference to FSX even though file access times will have been improved.

 

As for the USB comment, that is not analagous to what he said as the data still needs to be read and will be slower over a USB connection. It is in no sense pre-loaded.

 

Please don't be so defensive as much of this is about opinion, not fact.  Some people feel the need to extract the utmost performance from their PC.  Others feel that an additional 1% extra simply isn't worth all the effort.

 

Name defragging sounds like a useful concept in theory but what evidence is there that such alpha sorting is worthwhile for FSX? My understanding is that random access means there is no advantage in putting files in a particular order (such as alphabetical).

 

You dont need a top dog GPU for FSX.....well, it does help though

You dont need to overclock for FSX....well, it does help though

You dont need fast, low latency RAM for FSX.....well it does help though

SSD is no better than HDD.....well it does help though.

You can fill the HDD up to 80-90% with performance sensitive FSX data....well, I would not

I think few here would suggest a good GPU, a fast CPU, fast RAM, etc would not improve FSX so why pretend otherwise simply for hyperbolic effect? The issue is how much time and expense do you want to go to get those improvements. Who would seriously argue that an SSD is not better than an HDD? As for the 65% HDD rule, I think you would need to back that up with a bit more evidence than advice you've been given to make it a rule we should all stick by.

If defragmenting did not help then I can think of two things why that is:

1) You being held back by a slow CPU or GPU or RAM (which is why I mentioned those parts. Not as an exaggeration but as an example of all the things that come into play in FSX.) and you will in that case never see the effect of your defragging attempt.

 

2) You defragged wrong.

You need to put things in alphabetical order for it to help.

So that FSX tiles that are next to one another in the sim are also next to each other on the disc. I know of only one defrag solution that does that right for FSX.

 

Ok I wont defend the opinion v.s. fact thing anymore.

But we agree that FSX data is not pre-loaded

 

You seem like a well informed guy.

So I am pretty sure you have informed yourself all over the net about FSX.

So you will have most definately come across the forum I get my hardware info from.

If you have not been convinced by reading all over the place then you are certainly not going to be convinced by a non specialist like me.

So it is a mood point to give you more evidence from places you have already visited.

 

 

You are right about that last 1% statement.

It all comes down to how serious you are with FSX (and what you can afford to buy ofcourse).

In my case I try to make sure I have done everything possible to get an a smooth as possible experience.

If there is even the slightest chance that something could negatively influence FSX performance...then I go the safe route.

And that used to include not using more then 65% of my HDD for FSX.

(like I said I use SSD now).

That also includes putting a lot of work into tuning and setting Win7 up for maximum FSX performance.

Of course if you dont put that time investment into setting everything up correctly, then dont bother Name defragging or keeping 35% HDD space empty. It is not going to matter much anyway at that point. (and with that I dont mean to say you have not invested the time to set up everything perfectly!)

 

 

But like I said before, this all started when someone asked how much space the PMDG 777 needs, because his HDD is almost spilling over.

 

Do him a favour and tell him that he should not fill his HDD to the point of overflowing if he cares about FSX performance.

He can decide for himself whether or not to follow that advice, depending on how serious he is with HDD performance.

 

 

Other people may find otherwise. I tend to agree with him as I had a badly fragmented drive but defragmenting it made no noticeable difference to FSX even though file access times will have been improved.

 

I have definitely seen improvements after defrag. It might have to do with fact that I have an insanely slow laptop drive. I would have gone for 7200RPM option if I could - but I had to take it or leave it at the time, and all the faults of my trusty laptop nonwithstanding, it still was a very good buy for the price.

 

 

Name defragging sounds like a useful concept in theory but what evidence is there that such alpha sorting is worthwhile for FSX? My understanding is that random access means there is no advantage in putting files in a particular order (such as alphabetical).

 

Name defragging should, to my knowledge, arrange the FS folder in same general area on a disk. With random access, the biggest threat to actual throughput is seek times. By having the files in same general area, you are saving the needles a fair bit of repositioning.

 

 

But like I said before, this all started when someone asked how much space the PMDG 777 needs, because his HDD is almost spilling over.

 

Actually that person had SSD, did he not? Anyway, a nice discussion. A welcome break from Weather Radar, Release Date and EFB flames.

My oh my, you are right, he has SSD.

 

I got that in my first reply but totally forgot about that during the discussion.

 

Well, in that case 90% fill.

Why?

I dont know, cause my source says so :-)

By the way, my source also says never ever defrag an SSD!

(just want to prevent people from messing up their systems because I said name defragging is such a wonderfull tool!)

 

 

By the way, my source also says never ever defrag an SSD!
(just want to prevent people from messing up their systems because I said name defragging is such a wonderfull tool!)

 

Yes, that is true owing to the nature that SSD stores data. Every write wears it out - so it is better not to write on it. Including defrag (Besides, what is a fragment on an SSD drive? It does not even have "sectors" per se.)

I have definitely seen improvements after defrag. It might have to do with fact that I have an insanely slow laptop drive. I would have gone for 7200RPM option if I could - but I had to take it or leave it at the time, and all the faults of my trusty laptop nonwithstanding, it still was a very good buy for the price.

Mine is a slowish 3.5" HDD. Badly fragmented because I rarely run defrag. It had plenty of spare space so it defragged almost completely but I saw no difference in how FSX ran.

 

Name defragging should, to my knowledge, arrange the FS folder in same general area on a disk. With random access, the biggest threat to actual throughput is seek times. By having the files in same general area, you are saving the needles a fair bit of repositioning.

I wouldn't argue with that logic. I was questioning the benefit of storing files in alpha order.

 

Actually that person had SSD, did he not? Anyway, a nice discussion. A welcome break from Weather Radar, Release Date and EFB flames.

Ain't that the truth!

If defragmenting did not help then I can think of two things why that is:

1) You being held back by a slow CPU or GPU or RAM (which is why I mentioned those parts. Not as an exaggeration but as an example of all the things that come into play in FSX.) and you will in that case never see the effect of your defragging attempt.

 

2) You defragged wrong.

You need to put things in alphabetical order for it to help.

So that FSX tiles that are next to one another in the sim are also next to each other on the disc. I know of only one defrag solution that does that right for FSX.

It seems you aren't really talking about defragging at all, but putting files in name order on disk as part of the defrag process. I don't see how that can be a benefit. Scenery tiles that are close together may not be in alpha order, it depends on the direction of flight across the scenery. They will be loaded into memory in the order FSX wants them, so even if they are in alpha order on disk that doesn't mean they are in that order in memory. Even if they are, how can that help?

It seems you aren't really talking about defragging at all, but putting files in name order on disk as part of the defrag process. I don't see how that can be a benefit. Scenery tiles that are close together may not be in alpha order, it depends on the direction of flight across the scenery. They will be loaded into memory in the order FSX wants them, so even if they are in alpha order on disk that doesn't mean they are in that order in memory. Even if they are, how can that help?

Yes exactly, Name defrag is putting things in alphabetical order :-)

 

 

Ok wait, I found a link from the time the guy I am talking about was still at AVSIM.

Here is a deep explanation about 65% fill rate (I think pics and graphs have bren deleted though):

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/247277-removing-fsx-from-my-raptor-good-idea/#entry1563828

 

I copied this piece to highlight an important part but read through the whole thing if you can. It is amazingly enlightening:

 

Quote

"HoweverThe last 1/3 of the platter there is nothing one can do to overcome what happens from this point on. In combination with the access going sky high due to basic geometry and physics as you can see by the graphs, and, by Windows forcing the MFT to compact and locate at the end of the drive along with any paging operations that will force performance into the ditch very fast. Every time you call a file EVEN IF THAT FILE IS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PLATTER, the MFT is accessed for Windows use and that means that head is seeking to the END of the disk no matter where the data being called is located.

Unquote

 

 

I will try to find something about name defragging, standby.

Ok found it.

 

Now before I copy/paste.....is it allowed to copy/past from an other forum and then paste it here?