RollBack Rx V9 Defragging files. Is snapshot degfrag a complete alternative?

[Baldrick]

Originally Posted by nexstar

Nice to 'see' you too, Baldrick. It's a small world .

Yes, what I'm not clear about is, if the intention is to update the baseline anyway, why not do that first which will free up some disk space and result in less shuffling around of sectors.

Graham

It is a small world and becoming smaller everyday...due to the interweb!

Hope that you consider sticking around a contributing as it is good to have an RB Rx-specific place to air views/sort issues, etc.

It is all to do with what the 3rd party defragger sees and because they do not see the RB Rx snapshots updating the baseline first do not really have any bearing...if I have understood things correctly.

But perhaps Nick will join in a clarify the point definitively for us.

[nexstar]

Originally Posted by Baldrick

But perhaps Nick will join in a clarify the point definitively for us.

Yes, that would be good .

Graham

[nexstar]

Originally Posted by Baldrick

But perhaps Nick will join in a clarify the point definitively for us.

........and I'm sure he will in just a moment .

Graham

[HDSjames]

Escalating this one to Nick for his attention

[Nick10]

Originally Posted by nexstar

Nice to 'see' you too, Baldrick. It's a small world .

Yes, what I'm not clear about is, if the intention is to update the baseline anyway, why not do that first which will free up some disk space and result in less shuffling around of sectors.

Graham

Yes you got it right. It would make great sense to update the baseline before... However, you would still be required to update your baseline after the Defragging as well.... You have to realize that we created the defragger switch so that users would not have to Uninstall/Re-install RollBack Rx. The driving force behind making the quick-and-easy method described by our previous thread was to cut down on the number of steps that a users would need to go through in order to defrag thier system with a Windows file level defragger.

If we add the step to update baseline prior to defragging as well as after the defragging process - then the process would be quite comparable to Uninstalling RollBack Rx and then Reinstalling RollBack Rx after the defragging - Which was the conventional method, prior to the defragger switch being implemented.

From the perspective of RollBack Rx; when you uninstall the software it is actually updating the "Baseline" to a preferred snapshot prior to removing itself from the PC.... Then when you re-install RollBack Rx you are again updating (creating) a baseline.

The final outcome would be the same. I will get clarification on this by our development team and update whatever I find.

ps. welcome aboard!

[nexstar]

Originally Posted by Nick10

ps. welcome aboard!

Thanks .

Thanks for the explanation. I always uninstall/defrag/re-install but was just puzzled by the recommended order of events with the 'unofficial' defrag procedure. I can understand that you would need to update after the defrag. It just seemed that with a lot of potentially orphaned files/sectors about to be cleared out by the update, there was little point in defragging them. I understand why you've omitted this step now but it really just strengthens the case for sticking to the recommended procedure .

Graham

[cwm9]

Hi.

If I use /defrag but do NOT create a new baseline, are my other snapshots going to be corrupt, or will I simply end up with a lot of space gone because of sector duplication?

I am interested in knowing this because my snapshots are small relative to the drive size, and I would be perfectly happy to end up with repeated duplication of my data if that means I can both defragment AND keep my old snapshots.

I really don't care if my old snapshopts are defragmented -- I only care if my current snapshot is defragmented, and I am perfectly OK with the data being completely replicated on the drive if that lets me reorder the data.

[HDS-Stormy]

Originally Posted by cwm9

Hi.

If I use /defrag but do NOT create a new baseline, are my other snapshots going to be corrupt, or will I simply end up with a lot of space gone because of sector duplication?

I am interested in knowing this because my snapshots are small relative to the drive size, and I would be perfectly happy to end up with repeated duplication of my data if that means I can both defragment AND keep my old snapshots.

I really don't care if my old snapshopts are defragmented -- I only care if my current snapshot is defragmented, and I am perfectly OK with the data being completely replicated on the drive if that lets me reorder the data.

CWM,

Welcome to the Horizon DataSys Forums! You can contact support @ http://support.horizondatasys.com I will also pass this along and see if we can't get you an answer!

Maxxy

[Nick10]

Here are some answers to your questions.

Originally Posted by cwm9

If I use /defrag but do NOT create a new baseline, are my other snapshots going to be corrupt, or will I simply end up with a lot of space gone because of sector duplication?

You could choose to NOT create a new Baseline - there is no problem technically from not creating a Baseline. Your snapshots are not going to be corrupted. Your snapshot in which you "defragged" your drive using a file level defragger would be quite large.

.... I really don't care if my old snapshopts are defragmented -- I only care if my current snapshot is defragmented, and I am perfectly OK with the data being completely replicated on the drive if that lets me reorder the data.

When you defrag your drive using a file level defragger - only the files within that current snapshot would be defragged. Why would you NOT want to defrag your system at the baseline? or create a new baseline when you want to defrag your PC? Because if you spend 25+ minutes defragging within snapshot "C" (for example) - and then you decide at a latter point to roll-back to snapshot "B" or the Baseline "A" - all of your efforts of defragging that you performed in snapshot "C" would be lost - and quite honestly a complete waste of time and effort.

Refer to our previous thread for more details on defragging with RollBack Rx: RollBack Rx V9 Defragging files. Is snapshot degfrag a complete alternative?

Hope this info helps

[cwm9]

When you defrag your drive using a file level defragger - only the files within that current snapshot would be defragged. Why would you NOT want to defrag your system at the baseline?

Because I maintain multiple frameworks that I work in on a regular basis because they interfere with each other, and because I often want to roll back to uninstall some software without losing these alternative frameworks.


For example, I have one snapshot that contains only my CNC (Computer Numerical Control) software which drives my automated milling machine. This snapshot has just a few drivers installed, and cannot have any other software installed because the other software almost always has some sort of dongle protection or other drivers which can interfere with the very delicate precision timing needed to correctly control my steel cutting system. When the computer is cutting through steel, that is not a good time for the computer to decide to lock up for a few seconds!

I have another snapshot that contains my engineering software, but all of that software has a lot of dongle-drivers and other things that cannot co-exist with the CNC snapshot. I don't use this snapshot on a regular basis because all of the drivers have a bad habit of freezing the system.

I have a third snapshot which is my general purpose snapshot that I play games with and do my web surfing in.

Because I spend almost all of my time in my general purpose snapshot, I'd like to be able to defrag it without losing the other snapshots. Since the snapshot is only 30GB in size but is stored on a 1TB hard drive, I couldn't care less if I lost 30GB in order to defrag the drive.


I use multiple 1TB drives to store my data in, so my system partitions remain very small, on the order of 10-50GB.


I think eventually I will just upgrade to a solid state drive for my system drive, and then the whole question of defragmenting will be moot, but the technology is not qute mature enough for me to jump into it just yet.



My understanding of RB is that it will only redirect a sector if that sector is already occupied. After a RB defrag, the end of the drive is always free. Therefore, if I defrag each framework "to the end of the drive", all the files should be properly ordered and deframented. When I then have RB do an internal defrag, it will reposition the data to the front of the drive at the start of free space in the same order, preserving the defrag. I can then move on to the next framework and repeat. I will loose about 100GB of my remaining 600GB, but so what? I have 6TB worth of hard drives, and another hard drive is only $90. Of course, this means I have to move every single file on the drive twice to get a good defrag, plus each framework will occupy a different location on the HD, but at least in the end I will have a defragmented file system that boots quickly and the ability to switch back and forth fluidly between snapshots.

The alternative is to have three hard drives, each with a different framework, and RB installed on each. That means I have to purchase 3 HDs, 3 copies of RB, and have to select which HD to boot from each time I turn the computer on. It also means I lose the ability to transfer data between frameworks easily via the "explore snapshot" feature.

Saving space might be important for some of your customers, but not to me...