SSD's & Defragmentation

Hello.
I want to buy a new MacBook Air 13 inch.
It will be my first Apple computer with an SSD (my current model was a late 2010 MacBook with an HDD & 2 Gbs RAM!).
Naturally, it used to require a defragmentation once in awhile, but, recently I read in a comoputer's magazine, that by defragmenting an SSD, the user tends to damage it. Is this true? And if so, what's the best option, when dealing with an SSD?
To degragment or to not degragment... that's the question...
Thanks for any information you may provide me with.
All the best.

JMPC wrote:
Naturally, it used to require a defragmentation once in awhile, but, recently I read in a comoputer's magazine, that by defragmenting an SSD, the user tends to damage it. Is this true? And if so, what's the best option, when dealing with an SSD?
You DONT defrag it.
Best option? absolutely nothing is the answer.
JMPC wrote:
In any case, I'm happy to know that an SSD's more reliable than a HDD.
Thats not the case at ALL, theyre not fragile to bumps and drops like a conventional HD is......
other than that in the "reliable" dept, all bets are off.

Similar Messages

Defragmentation on SSD drives

We just moved our Sybase ASE15.7 databases from standard "mechanical" HDD drives to SSD drives (IBM SAN).
We suspect that with SSD drives, ASE indexes/tables will require less maintenance against fragmentation.
1) Is reorg/recreate maintenance on tables/indexes still relevant with data on SSD drives?
After moving the db devices to SSD drives, I still see index fragmentation using derived_stat() on sysobjets/sysindexes values.
So I suspect that reorg/recreate indexes are still important but their impact on SSD won't be as important as on standard HDD.
2) Is the concept of fragmentation applicable when a table/index is sent to cache?
In other terms, once the object is loaded in cache, should we ignore the fact that the table was initially fragmented?
Thanks,
Vincent

Regardless of drive storage technology, ASE uses cluster ratio's and the like (among many other factors) to choose optimal query plans. So these number very much matter. If comparing the same query plans from mechanical drive to SSD, you obviously will see a performance improvement because the physical io's are faster with SSD (perhaps).   What you _might_ consider is changing the ratio of the two configuration parameters
        cost of a logical io = 2,        cost of a physical io = 25
which by default states that a physio is 12.5 times longer than a cache hit. For SSD, that ratio might look something more like
         cost of a logical io = 2,        cost of a physical io = 8
maybe more maybe less, your mileage may vary, but what that does is close the gap between these two costs so that the performance aspect of the storage is more likely taken into account by the optimizer. BTW - this could be true for SAN based storage (for one example) with heavy caches in front of them as well.
Bottom line is that your "fragmentation" numbers play a role in optimization and query plan determinations. Performance of the arrived at query plan is influenced by the storage tech (and cpu, network, etc).

Comparison of SSD with hard disk drives

Attribute or characteristic
Solid-state drive
Hard disk drive
Spin-up time
Instantaneous.
May take several seconds. With a large number of drives, spin-up may need to be staggered to limit total power drawn.
Random access time[45]
About 0.1 ms - many times faster than HDDs because data is accessed directly from the flash memory
Ranges from 5–10 ms due to the need to move the heads and wait for the data to rotate under the read/write head
Read latency time[46]
Generally low because the data can be read directly from any location; In applications where hard disk seeks are the limiting factor, this results in faster boot and application launch times (see Amdahl's law).[47]
Generally high since the mechanical components require additional time to get aligned
Consistent read performance[48]
Read performance does not change based on where data is stored on an SSD
If data is written in a fragmented way, reading back the data will have varying response times
Defragmentation
SSDs do not benefit from defragmentation because there is little benefit to reading data sequentially and any defragmentation process adds additional writes on the NAND flash that already have a limited cycle life.[49][50]
HDDs may require defragmentation after continued operations or erasing and writing data, especially involving large files or where the disk space becomes low. [51]
Acoustic levels
SSDs have no moving parts and make no sound
HDDs have moving parts (heads, spindle motor) and have varying levels of sound depending upon model
Mechanical reliability
A lack of moving parts virtually eliminates mechanical breakdowns
HDDs have many moving parts that are all subject to failure over time
Susceptibility toenvironmental factors[47][52][53]
No flying heads or rotating platters to fail as a result of shock, altitude, or vibration
The flying heads and rotating platters are generally susceptible to shock, altitude, and vibration
Magneticsusceptibility[citation needed]
No impact on flash memory
Magnets or magnetic surges can alter data on the media
Weight and size[52]
The weight of flash memory and the circuit board material are very light compared to HDDs
Higher performing HDDs require heavier components than laptop HDDs that are light, but not as light as SSDs
Parallel operation[citation needed]
Some flash controllers can have multiple flash chips reading and writing different data simultaneously
HDDs have multiple heads (one per platter) but they are connected, and share one positioning motor.
Write longevity
Solid state drives that use flash memory have a limited number of writes over the life of the drive.[54][55][56][57] SSDs based on DRAM do not have a limited number of writes.
Magnetic media do not have a limited number of writes.
Software encryption limitations
NAND flash memory cannot be overwritten, but has to be rewritten to previously erased blocks. If a software encryption program encrypts data already on the SSD, the overwritten data is still unsecured, unencrypted, and accessible (drive-based hardware encryption does not have this problem). Also data cannot be securely erased by overwriting the original file without special "Secure Erase" procedures built into the drive.[58]
HDDs can overwrite data directly on the drive in any particular sector.
Cost
As of October 2010, NAND flash SSDs cost about (US)$1.40–2.00 per GB
As of October 2010, HDDs cost about (US)$0.10/GB for 3.5 in and $0.20/GB for 2.5 in drives
Storage capacity
As of October 2010, SSDs come in different sizes up to 2TB but are typically 512GB or less[59]
As of October 2010, HDDs are typically 2-3TB or less
Read/write performance symmetry
Less expensive SSDs typically have write speeds significantly lower than their read speeds. Higher performing SSDs and those from particular manufacturers have a balanced read and write speed.[citation needed]
HDDs generally have symmetrical read and write speeds
Free block availability andTRIM
SSD write performance is significantly impacted by the availability of free, programmable blocks. Previously written data blocks that are no longer in use can be reclaimed by TRIM; however, even with TRIM, fewer free, programmable blocks translates into reduced performance.[25][60][61]
HDDs are not affected by free blocks or the operation (or lack) of the TRIM command
Power consumption
High performance flash-based SSDs generally require 1/2 to 1/3 the power of HDDs; High performance DRAM SSDs generally require as much power as HDDs and consume power when the rest of the system is shut down.[62][63]
High performance HDDs generally require between 12-18 watts; drives designed for notebook computers are typically 2 watts.

I wish I could get my head round the SSD vs HDD with a NLE rig. My builder is trying to persuade me to use a Toshiba 256Gb THNSNC256GBSJ for OS and programs, and it is only NZ$20 more expensive than the 450Gb 10k rpm VelociRaptor I was originally planing to use for the OS. That sounds suspiciously cheap to me, and I am concerned about the finite writes to SSD - mainly because I don't really understand it.
The rest of the new build is
3930K
Gigabyte X79-UD5
8 x DDR3 1600
Coolermaster with 750W PSU
Geforce GTX570
I plan to transfer the drives from my current system as a starting point, and reassess after giving it some use. That means
Either the above SSD or 450Gb 10k Raptor for OS (new drives)
300Gb 10k rpm Raptor (currently used for OS in old box)
150Gb 7k4 rpm Raptor (reserved for Photoshop Scratch in old box)
2 x 1Tb WD Blacks (data drives)
2 x 1Tb WD USB3 externals
I don't know how I would configure the drives in the new box, but have seen Harm's table and will try to follow his advice. It's a dreadful thing to admit, but I don't have a backup strategy, and the above drives are well over half full. Well over! And I am only just getting serious about video, (the rest is mainly CR2 files from my Canon 1Ds3 and 1D4)
I know it must be like banging your head against the wall, but should I avoid that SSD and go with the 450G Raptor? I have read a comment that the WD Blacks don't work well as Raid0. Is that BS or true?
I am about to give the go-ahead so need to confirm the spec.

Can't install windows XP to a macbook pro with an Intel X25-M SSD

It's a strange problem:
We just bought some new unibody macbook pro 2.8Ghz machines, (4GB ram)etc. We also obtained some of the new Solid State Drives (SSDs) from Intel, the X25M-80GB.
(part number: SSDSA2MH080G1C5)
After installing the SSD into the macbook pro, everything works.....in OSX. Installation of 10.5.5 went without problem, all updates/firmware applied, everything works fine.
The problems start when you try to install XP. We used the boot camp assistant, and created a 32GB partition, put in a XPSP2 disk, and start the installation.
Everything starts up nicely and goes to the blue/white text based installer for XP. It loads drivers, and then reaches the point where it would ask you to select a disk to install to (where you would normally see the three partitions, 1 being the FAT32 you select as C:).
However, what you get instead is an error message that: +"Setup did not find any hard disk drives installed in your computer...."+ and then you have to exit.
If you use the original 320GB drive, everything works as expected, (nothing wrong with the laptop hardware, or the installation CD). If you stay in OSX, everything works as expected. (nothing wrong with the Intel SSD either)
To further add information, we also installed the Intel SSD into a Mac Pro (2008) as a second drive, booting to a windows installation (through boot camp) on the first disk. Windows boots fine, but there is no sign of the other drive AT ALL. (not a driver issue here - there simply isn't any hardware here as far as windows is concerned.)
That brought us to our conclusion that there is something awry in the BIOS/EFI
being presented to Windows, that doesn't support the Intel X25M drive at all.
However, there is no user customisation (or even access) to the settings or what's happening at that point in the boot cycle, so I'm unable to diagnose further.
Given the Intel SSDs are using their SOC (system on a chip), (I believe - but I could be wrong on that one) perhaps that just isn't supported by the EFI?
Would appreciate some advice on where to go from here? These SSDs cost about 1400AUD+ each, so we'd rather like to actually use them....
I suspect we're asking/requiring for an EFI update.
(to head off some questions: Yes, we've used different discs, and also different computers...The disk and hardware themselves are just fine. Also, the drive WAS formatted with a GPT paritition.)
Thanks!

From reading Vista forums support for SSD is one of the things Vista SP2 and Windows 7 hope (need) to improve upon. I was in a similar discussion once befoe on SSDs:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=8482110
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10026010-64.html
http://www.intel.com/design/flash/nand/mainstream/index.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US&q=IntelSSDVista
I don't think it is EFI issue, but with XP and drivers, lack, and wonder if you can try with Vista?
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080908-intel-tosses-hat-into-ssd-ring-wit h-80gb-launch.html
That won't solve performance issues, but should work.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/07/22/sandiskssd_vistabeef/
"My guess is that [Samsung and Microsoft] are maybe working on the OS recognizing an SSD with a 4K-byte sector size instead of a hard disk drive with a 512-byte sector size," Wong said.
Sun is already working with Samsung to bulk up SSD support on the ZFS (Zettabyte File System), which is included in the Solaris OS, and will also be supported in Apple's upcoming Mac OS X 10.6, codenamed Snow Leopard. Sun is adding capabilities to boost the durability and performance of SSDs on ZFS-based operating systems. For example, Sun may add defragmentation capabilities for SSDs, which organizes data in a particular order to enable quicker data access.
SSDs were not considered ideal for defragmentation because of limited read-and-write capabilities, Wong said. However, Samsung and Sun in July jointly announced an 8G-byte SSD that bumped up durability from 100,000 read-and-write cycles to 500,000. That brings defragmentation in SSDs closer to reality, which could improve its caching and provide quicker access to data. Sun plans to put SSDs into storage products later this year.
http://www.itworld.com/operating-systems/54115/samsung-microsoft-talks-speed-ssd s-vista

Please help! Major problems (performance and lock-ups) with brand new W520 with Intel 520 SSD

My company primarily uses HP machines but I've been a long time IBM (now Lenovo) fan so I recently had IT purchase me a new Lenovo W520 (product ID 42763LU).
Once the machine arrived I had them do the following:
Remove the 500GB HDD and replace it with an Intel 520 series 240GB SSD
Remove the optical drive and install the 500GB hard drive that came with the machine in the optical bay (with the bay adapter of course)
Format both drives and put a preconfigured windows 7 64-bit image on the SSD
A general summary of the system is the following:
Intel i7-2860QM CPU
8GB RAM
NVIDIA Quadro 1000M
Intel 520 240GB SSD (primary HDD) [SSDSC2CW240A3]
Hitachi 500GB HDD (optical bay) [HTS727550A9E365]
Intel Advanced-N 6205 network adapter
TouchChip Fingerprint Scanner
The machine was a few days delayed getting to me due to "hard drive driver issues" (that's what I was told). When I received the machine I immediately noticed that it was much slower than I expected (I have a custom built i5 HTPC at home running windows 7 on a Crucial SATA III SSD that I was comparing it to) and I was experiencing frequent hangs (ranging from 30 seconds to multiple minutes), super long boot times, general “slowness” at times, and occasional lock-ups. Since our "baseline" laptop here at work is the "equivalent" HP workstation my IT guys have been less than helpful in helping me to solve this issue. Being reasonably computer savvy I decided to try to try to fix the issue myself. I performed the following “troubleshooting” steps:
1. One of the first issues (errors) I noticed in the event viewer was errors related to the optical drive. Clearly the image they installed on the machine was not from a machine with the same hardware configuration. So, I decided to just wipe the machine and perform a fresh install of windows 7 from the disks (well, USB). After spending multiple days installing windows, performing updates, making sure all the drivers were current, and installing only the critical software I need, I was disappointed to realize that although I fixed the optical drive errors the machine was still slow, was hanging, and locking up regularly.
2. Removed the cover on the machine and removed/reinstalled the drive to verify it was secure.Everything looked good.
3. Verified the latest firmware is installed on all my Intel hardware. Everything seemed up to date.
4. I performed a number of troubleshooting steps like booting the machine with/without the battery, with/without the HDD in the optical bay, installed/removed from the docking station, etc. and none of these things helped (also a note – occasionally when running on the battery I was hearing a strange “buzz” or “static” sound coming from the area around the SSD).
5. Next I did some internet research and learned quite a few things. First, it sounds like others have had similar problems with this machine and/or SSD combo and there were quite a few options suggested to “fix” these issues. The general consensus for troubleshooting steps were:
5.1. Download and install the latest Intel chipset drivers and AHCI controller drivers (overwriting whatever windows installs during updates).This didn’t fix anything.
5.2. Turn off PCI express link state power management in the power manager. This didn’t fix anything.
5.3. Disable superfetch, prefetch, indexing, defragmentation, page file, system restore, and hibernate. A few of these were already disabled by windows so in those cases I just verified they were disabled in the services and application editor. These things may have slightly increased performance but did not fix the major hang/lockup issues I was having.
5.4. I followed online steps to edit the registry to disable the PCI link power management by adding ports, adding the required variables, and setting them all to 0. This did seem to have fixed the hangs and/or lock-ups but the machine is still much slower than I would expect (boot times are still pretty slow and it does “stutter” when I’m doing more than one thing at a time. Also a note here – I have the Intel SSD toolbox installed and I noticed that it was giving me a warning for DIPM not being optimized. I made the mistake of clicking “Tune!” and then started having the hang/lock-up issues again. I went back into the registry and sure enough the PCI link power management variables for ports 0 and 1 were set back to 1. I set them back to 0 and the hangs have gone away. I will not be “tuning” the DIPM through the Intel SSD toolbox again…
6. I also fixed a couple of other minor errors I was seeing in the event viewer by disabling benign services and/or making slight timeout modifications (I researched each issue on the internet to verify they were benign before I implemented any changes). These fixes didn't seem to do anything other than make some of the errors/warnings go away. So, the list of errors/warnings has become much smaller but I’m still getting the following (maybe an issue, maybe not?):
Event ID 37 for every processor saying that they are in a reduced performance state for xx seconds since the last report
Event ID 10002 - WLAN Extensibility Module has stopped
Event ID 4001 - WLAN AutoConfig service has successfully stopped
Event ID 27 – Intel® 82579LM Gigabit Network Connection link is disconnected
I suspect the WLAN errors have something to do with windows fighting with the Lenovo access connection tools?
7. Since the machine still seemed slow I downloaded the program AS SSD and checked the performance of the SSD. When I compared my performance numbers to the benchmark numbers I found onlineI was very surprised to discover that I’m getting about 50% of the performance that I should (values below are read/write).
Seq: 262.11 / 188.32 (s/b 504.58 / 298.28) [MB/s]
4K: 15.83 / 44.92 (s/b 21.70 / 62.60) [MB/s]
4K-64Thrd: 165.23 / 154.46 (s/b 241.38 / 234.08) [MB/s]
Acc.time: 0.218 / 0.294 (s/b .0186 / 0.208) [ms]
Score: 207 / 208 (s/b 314 / 327)
Overall Score: 533 (s/b 797)
One more note - it seems like my cooling fan is running at a high speed almost all of the time. This is probably one of my power settings (I think I have it set for max performance) but it's even doing this when there is no load (i.e. I'm using IE and just vieweing webpages - like right now).
So, I apologize for such a long post but I’ve spent countless hours researching and troubleshooting this problem and haven’t been able to figure out what the heck is wrong here. Am I missing something simple or do you guys think I have a SSD and/or problem with the machine itself? To say that any and all help would be greatly appreciated would be a massive understatement – I’m on the verge of pulling my hair out and I really need this machine working as quickly as possible!
Please let me know if you have any suggestions and/or need additional information. Thanks in advance for your help!
-Erik

Lol gotcha about the drive as an option. I didn't go SSD with mine. Do you have the latest firmware on your drive? It is supposed to be v1.97. Just checking (ah and I see item 3 so guess so). Do you have the SSD drive toolbox software installed?
http://downloadcenter.intel.com/SearchResult.aspx?lang=eng&ProductFamily=Solid+State+Drives+and+Cach...)
Seems some useful tools are in there. I can't say much beyond that with the drive. Oh. Why does your fan always run at high speed? Can you describe that? I mean, are we troubleshooting the right kind of issue? Is there anything else going on with your system? I saw about the reduced core speeds message. what are your system loads like? Anything causing high cpu utilization? Could be something other than the drive causing your low numbers and lockups.

Best way to (re)install Mountain Lion fresh on a new ssd

Hi, I've been running Mountain Lion on my 2010 Mac Pro 3.2ghz but it's got incredibly slow with only 120 GB on a 1 TB HDD.. I've used every utility to try to clean my old drive and speed things up (DiskWarrior, defragmentation, etc) without much help I don't want to carry over all the stuff to a new SSD. I'd like to start clean with an entirely new OS install of Mountain Lion on a Samsung 512GB SSD. I've got all the software and once it's upgraded I'll figure out which files to carry forward or keep all the data files on another drive with links. I'll figure that out eventually.
Mty present system was built starting with Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion and Mountain Lion. I purchased licenes for each of the OSes and still have all the software. I may even have Lion on a bootable thumb drive. Do I have to start with Leopard and then move to Snow Leopard before moving to Mountain Lion?
I did try just reinstalling a new OS by booting Mountain Lion and using Time Machine. Still slow...like 75 seconds to boot and spinning wheels.. I haven't tried moving the files and then reinstalling Mountain Lion with a clone then to the SSD. I'd like to start with a new system install direct to the SSD.
Any ideas. Again, I do have all the licenses and could start with Leopard but that seems tedious.

FatMac\>MacPro wrote:
You don't need to upgrade anything, as I believe you suspect. A straight install of ML will get you there. I did the same thing on a Crucial M500 last week and it's working like a charm. And that was on a 2010 Mac Pro.
If you haven't installed your Samsung in a Mac Pro bay yet, I'd recommend this which fits perfectly.
Are you saying I can do a standalone install of Mountain Lion by itself with NO previous system? I just checked Apple/s minimum requirements for Mountain Lion =
"Your Mac needs:
OS X v10.6.8 or OS X Lion already installed
2 GB or more of memory
8 GB or more of available space"
This suggests that Mountain Lion is NOT a standalone install, but an upgrade

Results and a Procedure for SSD Upgrade on T410s

After finding that my T410s 1.8" hard drive was 35% - 60% slower than the variety of 2.5" SATA Hard Drives in my older Thinkpads, I selected a Kingston SSDNow V+180 128GB for $219 for the SSD upgrade from Amazon because this Kingston model had the best price for published performance.
If anyone else is thinking of this upgrade, here are the results using CrystalDiskMark to measure Read and Write speeds. (The Kingston has much better Write speeds than the Intel SSD used in some T410s models.)
System: T410s with 1.8" Toshiba 250G drive > upgraded to Kingston SSDNow V+180 128GB
                                                    HDD             SSD               Improvement
Sequential Read 1000MB           47 MB/s        190 MB/s       304%
Sequential Write 1000MB           46                 150                 226%
Random Read       512KB           21                 174                 728%
Random Write       512KB           22                 149                 577%
Random Read           4KB          0.30               14.0              4566%
Random Write           4KB          0.68               16.0              2253%
Upgrade Procedure
To complete the upgrade, I restored a Windows 7 Disk Image from the HDD to the SSD. Partition Alignment and TRIM were both correct after the transfer to the SSD. The Windows 7 image was on a USB drive where I maintain a Fresh Install image that has my full setup.
Notes: To restore a Windows 7 image from a larger drive to a smaller drive, you must create the disk image after shrinking drive C:\ to a size that permits it to fit on the new smaller drive . . so your larger source drive MUST HAVE unallocated space before creating the Windows 7 Disk Image. When shrinking drive C:\ on your source drive, shrink it enough so it will easily fit with room to spare on new smaller drive, otherwise Windows 7 image restore will not work.   You can expand drive C:\ to fill the entire new SSD drive after restoring the image to the SSD. (more notes about the source drive below)
- The Disk Imaging mentioned in this post is built into Windows 7 - Acronis is great but not needed for this SSD upgrade.
- Shrinking and Expanding drive C:\ is done in Windows 7 Disk Management
- Your larger source drive must be configured to have Unallocated Space before creating the disk image.  Its the total size of all partitions on your source drive that matters, even if you don't select extra partions to be in the image. Creating Unallocated Space on the source drive is the only thing that works for using Disk Imaging to move from a larger drive to a smaller drive.
Important:   Check out post installation Tweaks when using an SSD at this link.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1133897/windows-7-ssd-tweaking-guide
especially disable Hybernation and scheduled Defragmentation. Scheduled Defragementation may be set by default on all Windows 7 installations.
Other Results
Windows 7 boots to the login screen in 16 seconds now compared to 28 seconds before.
The T410s with the Toshiba HDD was a real drag compared to my older T500 and T61 with stock 5400rmp Hard Drives.
The T410s with the Kingston SSD is now my quickest system.
The measured results I get from the Kingston are a little slower than the results published in an independent review of this drive using the same free CrystalDiskMark utility. I know my Partition Alignment is good, so maybe the different results are caused by some difference in the computers.  To make sure the disk image transfer wasn't causing a performance hit, I also performed a from-scratch install of Windows 7 directly on the SSD. The performance tests results were the same with either method getting Win7 on the SSD.
The 1.8" Toshiba Hard Drive that came with the T410s was painfully slow, I am a little surprised Lenovo would put this drive in one of their business class systems.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Thank you for posting this. It was very helpful in my decision to move from the Toshiba 250G drive to the 256G Kingston. The performance of the drive is awesome. I thought I would share a few items on how I went through the upgrade.
I used the Lenovo Rescue and Recovery and performed a full BASE backup. It took about 12-14 hours to backup around 220 GB.
I then replaced the old drive with the new drive.
After replacing, I used the two recovery DVDs to restore to factory settings.
After back to factory, I went through all the basic setup so I could use the OS.
I then downloaded the critical update for Recuse and Recovery.
After that I ran rescue and recovery with the option to replace everything.
The restore of the data took 3-6 hours (didn't sit around to watch the whole thing).
Everything was restored perfectly. No issues at all.
I had read that you could boot off of the external backup on USB, but I couldn't validate that myself. Lenovo tech support also said it couldn't be done. I had reviewed my plan with Lenovo support a few times to be sure I was doing things right. The knowledge level on R&R is pretty inconsistent.
Also, a note that my original drive was encrypted with PGP Whole Disk Encryption. When R&R backs up the data it's no longer encrypted and I didn't have a password on the backup. I turned off disk defrag after the restore. I confirmed Windows 7 was set to use TRIM.
I highly recommend the drive. The 256GB wasn't cheap, but I needed that amount of space. The performance like I said, is excellent.
Good post, swbca. Thanks!

Defragmentation on ssd in windows 7 yes or no

When i have installed a Samsung 850 evos ssd 500 gb, do i then have to make any changes in windows 7 home premium 64 bit, to ensure the best performance from the ssd? I have read a couple of different oppinions about the subject defragmentation, but what is your opinion about that, when using a installed ssd? Should it be on or off, and also are there any other changes that perhaps should be made?
Best regards to everyone
This question was solved.
View Solution.

hpenvy1 wrote:
When i have installed a Samsung 850 evos ssd 500 gb, do i then have to make any changes in windows 7 home premium 64 bit, to ensure the best performance from the ssd? I have read a couple of different oppinions about the subject defragmentation, but what is your opinion about that, when using a installed ssd? Should it be on or off, and also are there any other changes that perhaps should be made?
Best regards to everyone
Defragging of an SSD should never take place. If im not mistaken samsung also delivers software suited to ensure that the SSD runs at optimal performance with user input. If defragging is schedualed on your win7 machine and the SSD is your main drive, namely where your OS resides you should turn it off. I do beleive win7 is smart enough to realise that an SSD is installed but im not sure, as for win8.1 this is done automatically.
Pavilion 17-e188sd Notebook PC
AMD E1-2500 Radeon 8200
Samsung SSD EVO 840
Corsair DDR3 8192 MB RAM
QC 802.11bgn/BT/Win 8.1 64 bit

Size of SSDs for Photoshop CS5, LR3, Windows 7

Looking at configurations to build a new desktop, I've been reading so many articles on using SSDs for PS CS5 that I'm now confused.
    I'd like to use one drive for OS & programs and a 2nd for a PS scratch disk. I'm looking at 80GB or 120GB to fit my budget. Will either of these sizes be suitable for the two drives. I've noticed that Intel just dropped their prices today and added the 120GB drive.
    I would like to use WD hard drives for a storage drive and another for a working drive (4 internal drives total) as the computer functions for family Internet, too. Now, I store my main Lightroom catalogs and photos on an external drive so I can move them between my desktop and laptop. My PS interests usually lie in collages of 6-8 photos (layers) and stringing photos together for landscapes. Lightroom does a lot of my editing adjustments other than that. I'm looking at 8MB of RAM for now, again for the budget.
    What do you suggest?

Ok, SSD's and photoshop...
there are a lot of differnet ways to handle this question none of them are easier then the other ..
I just did this like a month ago and here is what i did. *** note** Now i am not suggesting you follow my steps, but you can do something similar at a much lower price range
I have an OCZ RevoDrive 110 gig SSD as my primary os drive and program files directory.
second drive set is a pair of 10krpm 300gb raptor drives striped for a 600 gd data drive.
I have a 2x 2TB hard drives that are my archives but i keep them off line.
Now here is where it gets complicated.
You want to write to your SSD as little as possable for longevity of the drives mostly. so first thing is you want no swapper, no automatic defragmentation and several other SSD spacific settings like hibernation etc, if you have been doing the research you already know all this.
Now i took that and went a step even further and this is not something you would want to do unless you are extreeeemly confortable with playing around with OS configurations.
I during the OS build set all my user directories, program data, set the swapper to the Physical data hard drive set as well as the PS scratch disk, Internet caches etc..
This make it so that my primary boot and program files drive never gets written to unless there is an update or i am installing something.
The second Physical drive handles all the changing data. User profiles, personal settings, desktop, etc.
This does a number of things for me, everything launches and runs extreemly quickly it takes seconds for boot to dektop apps launch with out hesitation. It alows me to use a smaller SSD to house all my applications and OS while not restricting my ammount of data i can keep on my desktop or documents folders.
I have only used 35 gigs out of the 110 gig ssd installing all my apps and os including several very large games.
If i had to do it again i would do it exactly the same way.
Now, if you are not so confident in your OS skills and simply want an SSD for the extreme speed it will provide you. I would still suggest only using a single SSD and use a second physical drive.
Several reasons, its a heck of a lot cheaper.
Place your scatch disk, your OS swapper file (ssd does not need a swapper file but unless you have an ungodly ammount of memory you should always have one some place), temp directories and internet explorer cache locations onto the physical drive. Also to store your data on it.
SSD are too expensive to use for data storage or swapper/scratch drives at this point and it does not buy you anything speed wise using it as cache or temp folders. additionally when you are simply storing images you don't need that extreemly quick you will not see a noticable difference opening a photo on physical hd or SSD its just not that much data.
One last thing, unless your in an extreem rush, i would wait 6 months. with SATA 3 and USB-3 coming around and already showing on most new motherboards, newer faster SSD's and physical drives will be making their way to the market pretty quick.

REFS, lost hard disk space after Windows defragmentation

Hi,
first some short information about the Server.
Windows Server 2012 Datacenter
OS disk = 60 GB SSD
Physical raid Controller: Areca ARC-1261
Raid = Level 6
Used Disks = 11 x 2TB + 1 hot spare
File system = REFS
Usable space = 16,3 TB
Real used space (what the tools and folder properties counted) = 14,0 TB
Used space (what i see in the computer overview) = 15,4 TB
Unknown space what I could see with disk scan tool (or the tools calculated) = 1,4 TB
So here what you could quickly see that i've got a "little" problem with wasted/unknown space....
How the Problem originated:
The system drive is a SSD, after running this Server about 150 days and unnecessary little Windows problems i remembered the garbage collector for SSD (TRIM).
So i wanted to schedule with "Defragment and Optimize Drives" an automatic job for cleaning the drive.
My problem was, that I couldn't deselect the big raid volume, but i gave it a try an scheduled weekly the optimization.
Next day i got some alerts "low disk space warnings", i've lost about 1 TB of disk space but could not explain how I could lost this amount of space.
After starting a resizing of the raid, i counted with file property the real used space and could not explain the shown size in the overview.
What I've tried to fix this problem:
First of all, a lot of google....
Shadow copy: checked, fully cleaned, disabled = nothing just a few GB.
Backup: checked, fully cleaned, disabled = nothing, but ran under an extra disk but... could never know what's wrong
Folder options: enabled this far that i could see system protected files and default hidden
Safe boot = tried a safe boot (some solutions for different user in the web) = nothing could not see more or less
O & O Defrag (latest server edition) = didn't support REFS
last of it, new clean installation of windows
My Questions:
Is defragmentation on refs possible/useful or is it just an bug with that "Defragment and Optimize Drives" tool?
Are the any information's about fixing troubles on REFS or commands on PS oder cmd? (could not find anything on google)
I've got some books for WS2012 and e-books but there are no helpful information's about REFS.
I know this is a big text block, but i wanted to show you detailed the problem and my attempts to solve this problem.
I hope you could help me or show me new ways to solve this problem.
Tanks in future....!

ReFS formats by default to 64KB block sizes (shows up in Disk Management as "Allocation Unit Size" when you go try formatting).
NTFS formats by default to 4 KB block sizes and up to 64KB.
If you have 1 file that is 4KB in size, and you use ReFS (default block size), it's going to occupy the entire 64KB. That is true of NTFS if you choose to format in 64KB (required for SQL and Hyper-V VHD's and VHDX's).
If your files are smaller than 64K, then stick with NTFS.
Yong Rhee [MSFT]
That is true for the defaults for ReFS but its possible to use a smaller allocation size using the options. Unfortunately most never think to do that.
Place your rig specifics into your signature like I have, makes it 100x easier!
Hardcore Games Legendary is the Only Way to Play!
Vegan Advocate How can you be an environmentalist and still eat meat?

Defrag Detects RAID-0 HDD as SSD

I originally posted this on the Microsoft Community Windows 8.1 forum. A Microsoft Support Engineer responded by telling me it would be better suited in Microsoft TechNet forum. So here I am. Any help would be appreciated.
Anyway, I have Windows 8.1 Update 1 installed on a SSD drive. I have a second SSD drive that is used for programs that benefit from high read rates. Finally, I have four HDDs that are setup up as two RAID-0 arrays. One is used for programs
while the other is used for storage. Defrag detects the SSDs as SSDs, and the first RAID-0 array is detected as a HDD. However, the second RAID-0 array is detected as a SSD. As a result, I can't defrag the drive using the GUI utility. (UPDATE:
Running Defrag from the CMD line seems to work)
The problematic array is identified as an HDD using Intel's SSD Toolbox and RST driver utility. So I'm not sure why Windows thinks it is a SSD. Rerunning WINSAT did not resolve the issue. Is there a way to overide the Windows drive detection?

Hi
DarWun,
Disk Defragmenter uses the
Windows System Assessment Tool (WinSAT) to evaluate the performance of the device by getting the “random read disc score” of the device. The performance threshold was determined by some I/O heuristics
through WinSAT to best distinguish SSD from rotating hard disks.
Here is a blog for reference:
Windows 7 Disk Defragmenter User Interface Overview
http://blogs.technet.com/b/filecab/archive/2009/11/25/windows-7-disk-defragmenter-user-interface-overview.aspx
There is a key in the registry, the Defragmenter will recognize the device as SSD when the value is above a specific valus.I recommend you check the values
of “randomreaddiskscore”.Here is the path:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\WinSAT
Here is a similar discussion(Pay attention to Tim`s response ):
Why Windows 8 and 8.1 defragment your SSD and how you can avoid this
http://www.outsidethebox.ms/why-windows-8-defragments-your-ssd-and-how-you-can-avoid-this/#sel=77:7,77:9
NOTE: This response contains a reference to a third party World Wide Web site. Microsoft is providing this information as a convenience to you. Microsoft
does not control these sites and has not tested any software or information found on these sites.
Best regards

Two Kingston SSD dead on Satellite L850-1PD

I replaced my mechanic hard drive with a Kingston SSD and after two months the drive just stopped working. I got my money back and bought another Kingston SSD on another supplier. After another couple of months the new drive stopped working again. I'm on the process of replacing it with a new one however, at this point, I believe that there is something wrong with the laptop causing the hard drives to fail.
If more details are needed, I can provide them.
Thank you.

I dont think that the issue could be related to the notebook.
Why should notebook break the SSD drives and how?
I mean the SSD drive is connected to the SATA controller and thats it!
What you should do is check and modify some system settings
You could disable the scheduled disk defragmentation
Disk defragmentation is only useful for common spinning HDD that have moving parts but not for SSD drive!
You should also disable indexing. Indexing is a Windows service that is designed to speed up Windows search. The indexing service automatically keeps track of the files which makes files searching faster.
But the point is that Windows indexing performs numerous small write operations and this might decrease the SSD working life.
Last but not least make sure TRIM support is enabled and you could disable, move or reduce the page file

MSI Gt70 Dragon Edition Change 750gb HD for 1TB SSD drive

hello
i'm thinking about changing the drive of 750gb of my MSI GT70 Dargon Editio for 1tb SSD drive, I can have a problem??
apart from the trim enabled, disable defragmentation and disk automatic shutdown for power saving, I need something more?
need some change in the bios?
will be a nice change?
thanks in advanace

Quote from: Prometheus06 on 08-January-14, 20:44:58
hello,
this laptop have 2 SSD drives Msata in super RAid and 1 HD 2'5" of 750Gb
the idea are change the 750Gb for another 1Tb drive SSD
Then it's just a matter of taking the old HDD out and putting in the new one really.

NO SSD Hardware but getting Event ID: 257 Error 0x80070057 on new Upgrade to Windows 8.1 Pro

Hi Folks
I am getting this error after upgrading to W 8.1 Pro from W 8.0 on TWO different partitions on a 2 TB HDD that has THREE partitions. The third one, I just reimaged it for a W 8.1 Pro Lab, OPTIMIZED OKAY. My other 1 TB HDD drive with 2 partition optimized fine.
At the present time, the only Flash Drives I have are Thumb Drives (Jump Drives) which are NOT "check off" for optimization.
I DO NOT have any SSD's!!!
Thank You for your attention to this issue,
Crysta
PhotM Phantom of the Mobile

Hi Alex,
I have done the 3 partitions on the 2 TB HDD. Drive F appears to have had no problems in either Analysis or Defrag AND did not have any problems in the GUI run neither!!!
PS C:\Windows\system32> Optimize-Volume -DriveLetter f -analyze -Defrag –Verbose
VERBOSE: Invoking defragmentation on W 8.1 Pro F (F:)...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 0% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 6% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 7% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 8% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 10% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 11% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 12% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 13% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 14% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 15% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 17% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 18% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 19% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 20% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 21% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 22% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 23% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 24% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 25% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 26% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 27% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 28% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 29% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 30% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 32% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 33% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 34% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 38% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 39% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 76% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 78% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 79% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 80% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 100% complete.
VERBOSE:
Pre-Optimization Report:
VERBOSE:
Volume Information:
VERBOSE: Volume size = 250.00 GB
VERBOSE: Cluster size = 4 KB
VERBOSE: Used space = 67.67 GB
VERBOSE: Free space = 182.33 GB
VERBOSE:
Fragmentation:
VERBOSE: Total fragmented space = 0%
VERBOSE: Average fragments per file = 1.00
VERBOSE: Movable files and folders = 260787
VERBOSE: Unmovable files and folders = 4
VERBOSE:
Files:
VERBOSE: Fragmented files = 1
VERBOSE: Total file fragments = 2
VERBOSE:
Folders:
VERBOSE: Total folders = 7290
VERBOSE: Fragmented folders = 0
VERBOSE: Total folder fragments = 0
VERBOSE:
Free space:
VERBOSE: Free space count = 1222
VERBOSE: Average free space size = 152.62 MB
VERBOSE: Largest free space size = 38.27 GB
VERBOSE:
Master File Table (MFT):
VERBOSE: MFT size = 1.23 GB
VERBOSE: MFT record count = 1295615
VERBOSE: MFT usage = 100%
VERBOSE: Total MFT fragments = 3
VERBOSE: Note: File fragments larger than 64MB are not included in the fragmentation statistics.
VERBOSE: Performing pass 1:
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 0% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 1% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 8% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 16% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 26% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 36% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 46% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 56% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 65% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 75% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 85% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 95% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 100% complete.
VERBOSE: Performing pass 2:
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 0% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 1% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 14% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 25% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 35% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 46% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 56% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 67% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 77% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 88% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 98% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 100% complete...
VERBOSE: Free Space Consolidation: 100% complete.
VERBOSE:
Post Defragmentation Report:
VERBOSE:
Volume Information:
VERBOSE: Volume size = 250.00 GB
VERBOSE: Cluster size = 4 KB
VERBOSE: Used space = 67.67 GB
VERBOSE: Free space = 182.33 GB
VERBOSE:
Fragmentation:
VERBOSE: Total fragmented space = 0%
VERBOSE: Average fragments per file = 1.00
VERBOSE: Movable files and folders = 260787
VERBOSE: Unmovable files and folders = 4
VERBOSE:
Files:
VERBOSE: Fragmented files = 1
VERBOSE: Total file fragments = 2
VERBOSE:
Folders:
VERBOSE: Total folders = 7290
VERBOSE: Fragmented folders = 0
VERBOSE: Total folder fragments = 0
VERBOSE:
Free space:
VERBOSE: Free space count = 1214
VERBOSE: Average free space size = 307.26 MB
VERBOSE: Largest free space size = 38.27 GB
VERBOSE:
Master File Table (MFT):
VERBOSE: MFT size = 1.23 GB
VERBOSE: MFT record count = 1295615
VERBOSE: MFT usage = 100%
VERBOSE: Total MFT fragments = 3
VERBOSE: Note: File fragments larger than 64MB are not included in the fragmentation statistics.
This is Drive E, which advanced through the Analysis just fine but has Errors in the Defrag like reported by the GUI method:
PS C:\Windows\system32> Optimize-Volume -DriveLetter e -analyze -Defrag –Verbose
VERBOSE: Invoking defragmentation on Equis (E:)...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 0% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 1% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 2% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 3% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 4% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 5% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 6% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 7% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 8% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 9% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 10% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 11% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 12% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 13% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 20% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 96% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 97% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 99% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 100% complete.
VERBOSE:
Pre-Optimization Report:
VERBOSE:
Volume Information:
VERBOSE: Volume size = 1.32 TB
VERBOSE: Cluster size = 4 KB
VERBOSE: Used space = 1.15 TB
VERBOSE: Free space = 177.33 GB
VERBOSE:
Fragmentation:
VERBOSE: Total fragmented space = 5%
VERBOSE: Average fragments per file = 1.08
VERBOSE: Movable files and folders = 679880
VERBOSE: Unmovable files and folders = 4
VERBOSE:
Files:
VERBOSE: Fragmented files = 1815
VERBOSE: Total file fragments = 50782
VERBOSE:
Folders:
VERBOSE: Total folders = 31651
VERBOSE: Fragmented folders = 988
VERBOSE: Total folder fragments = 3893
VERBOSE:
Free space:
VERBOSE: Free space count = 4027
VERBOSE: Average free space size = 45.04 MB
VERBOSE: Largest free space size = 37.33 GB
VERBOSE:
Master File Table (MFT):
VERBOSE: MFT size = 6.72 GB
VERBOSE: MFT record count = 7054847
VERBOSE: MFT usage = 100%
VERBOSE: Total MFT fragments = 35
VERBOSE: Note: File fragments larger than 64MB are not included in the fragmentation statistics.
VERBOSE: Performing pass 1:
VERBOSE: Defragmentation: 0% complete...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Optimize-Volume : One or more parameter values passed to the method were invalid.
At line:1 char:1
+ Optimize-Volume -DriveLetter e -analyze -Defrag –Verbose
+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ CategoryInfo : InvalidArgument: (MSFT_Volume (Ob...1-a911-806e...):ROOT/Microsoft/...age/MSFT_Volume) [
Optimize-Volume], CimException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : MI RESULT 4,Optimize-Volume
The third Drive G, also had no Problems in Analysis BUT did have Errors in the Defrag like in Drive E:
PS C:\Windows\system32> Optimize-Volume -DriveLetter g -analyze -Defrag –Verbose
VERBOSE: Invoking defragmentation on W 8.1 Pro PR (G:)...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 0% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 4% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 5% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 6% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 7% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 8% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 9% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 10% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 11% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 12% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 13% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 16% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 17% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 18% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 19% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 20% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 21% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 22% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 23% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 24% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 25% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 26% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 27% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 28% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 29% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 30% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 31% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 32% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 33% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 34% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 35% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 38% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 39% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 76% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 77% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 78% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 79% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 80% complete...
VERBOSE: Analysis: 100% complete.
VERBOSE:
Pre-Optimization Report:
VERBOSE:
Volume Information:
VERBOSE: Volume size = 250.00 GB
VERBOSE: Cluster size = 4 KB
VERBOSE: Used space = 70.00 GB
VERBOSE: Free space = 179.99 GB
VERBOSE:
Fragmentation:
VERBOSE: Total fragmented space = 1%
VERBOSE: Average fragments per file = 1.02
VERBOSE: Movable files and folders = 218559
VERBOSE: Unmovable files and folders = 4
VERBOSE:
Files:
VERBOSE: Fragmented files = 1991
VERBOSE: Total file fragments = 4405
VERBOSE:
Folders:
VERBOSE: Total folders = 7350
VERBOSE: Fragmented folders = 60
VERBOSE: Total folder fragments = 194
VERBOSE:
Free space:
VERBOSE: Free space count = 10385
VERBOSE: Average free space size = 17.72 MB
VERBOSE: Largest free space size = 38.27 GB
VERBOSE:
Master File Table (MFT):
VERBOSE: MFT size = 1.23 GB
VERBOSE: MFT record count = 1295615
VERBOSE: MFT usage = 100%
VERBOSE: Total MFT fragments = 3
VERBOSE: Note: File fragments larger than 64MB are not included in the fragmentation statistics.
VERBOSE: Performing pass 1:
VERBOSE: Defragmentation: 0% complete...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Optimize-Volume : One or more parameter values passed to the method were invalid.
At line:1 char:1
+ Optimize-Volume -DriveLetter g -analyze -Defrag –Verbose
+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ CategoryInfo : InvalidArgument: (MSFT_Volume (Ob...3-bec6-806e...):ROOT/Microsoft/...age/MSFT_Volume) [
Optimize-Volume], CimException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : MI RESULT 4,Optimize-Volume
I hope this information helps....
Best Regards,
Crysta
PhotM Phantom of the Mobile

Turn off defrag of SSD in Windows 8.1

Greetings,
After applying my Windows 8.1 Update 1 OS image to a tablet, I noticed that it has set the defragmenter to automatically defrag my SSD. This is an appalling default and Im very surprised MS hasnt fixed it.
Does anyone know a registry hack or something that I can do in my task sequence to turn of all automatic defragmenting in Windows 8.1 permanently please?
Thanks
David Z

This is not something you have to worry about. The defrag task will recognize that this is an SSD and exit.
Thanks,
-Michael Niehaus
Senior Product Marketing Manager, Windows Deployment
http://blogs.technet.com/mniehaus
[email protected]
It would be nicer if it just "unchecked" the box next to the drive so that it doesnt give us a false impression.

SSD's & Defragmentation

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for