| Conducting a Web search today for answers on slow | | | | applications occupy a great amount of IT time just |
| computer performance will yield many answers, but | | | | for implementation and debugging. In this scenario |
| one of the top, if not the top reason found is hard | | | | scheduled defragmentation becomes another |
| drive fragmentation. IT experts have been warning | | | | time-consuming task on an already-overlong list. In |
| for many years that fragmentation, like an insidious | | | | order to figure out which disks need defragmenting |
| disease, compounds and dramatically slows down | | | | and when, a fragmentation analysis must be done by |
| system performance. Why it affects performance is | | | | IT personnel. And it can't be done just once, it must |
| understandable-access to files split into multiple pieces | | | | be done regularly, because system activity and |
| means many additional I/Os. But what isn't | | | | demands change; some volumes may need it more |
| understandable is that some IT departments wait | | | | than others, and IT has to keep on top of which are |
| until fragmentation is manifest-that is, until a system | | | | the most active. Once such an analysis is done, |
| is slowing down-to take action. | | | | defragmentation must be scheduled on hundreds or |
| IT staffs are busy enough. Waiting until there are | | | | thousands of volumes to reflect the results of the |
| complaints of slow performance or, worse, waiting | | | | analysis. |
| until server performance is affecting a whole | | | | But the addition of an IT task is not, however, the |
| enterprise, elevates defragmentation to the level of | | | | worst problem with scheduled defragmentation. If an |
| "putting out fires". Additionally, waiting drives until | | | | analyses is checked closely for the busiest volumes |
| performance is noticeably slow means that your | | | | and especially on large volumes, one will find that |
| users have already lost time due to slow | | | | scheduled time is actually not doing the full job. |
| performance while it was less noticeable, and that | | | | Fragmentation is being left behind, and on very busy |
| fragmentation has accumulated to the point at which | | | | and very large disks, it may not even be |
| a defragmenter is going to take considerable time to | | | | defragmenting at all. |
| do its job. It also means that your system reliability is | | | | In this day and age, IT departments should just |
| in jeopardy-serious fragmentation can cause system | | | | make the leap into completely automatic |
| hangs and crashes which will involve even more IT | | | | defragmentation. There are now solutions available |
| time to sort out. | | | | which require no scheduling, which work invisibly, in |
| The solution, as experts have also been pointing out | | | | the background, with absolutely no impact on |
| for years, is regular defragmentation. For some time, | | | | performance while users are performing work on the |
| they have been available which can be scheduled, so | | | | system. |
| that regular defragmentation does occur. That way, | | | | The motto: Don't wait until the fragmentation disease |
| fragmentation is at least reduced, and performance | | | | has thoroughly infected your computers. With |
| and reliability aren't so endangered. | | | | completely automatic, you now have an excuse to |
| But IT time is at a premium. The latest technologies | | | | put the task of defragmentation-and fragmentation |
| such as SAN, NAS, server virtualization and advanced | | | | itself-completely behind you and your enterprise. |