TSB
Computers and Software => Computers and Software - General => Topic started by: Frog on June 23, 2016, 12:03:41 PM
-
Not unlike the impression I must give spammers about my own performance, my usually great box has slowed down a bit. Not bad, but lags that I notice.
It has the OS and all applications on a 128GB SSD (actually 111) with only 13G showing as free. Just like with a conventional HDD, that's not ideal, and I assume is adding to the sluggishness.
So, when I look to free up some space, the obvious culprit of 5.5G in the recycle bin os obvious, but how about the 6.62 in Windows Update Cleanup? Is there any potential downside to dumping this pig?
Then, it gets a little more mysterious when I click More Options and see the option to get rid of something called System Restore and Shadow.
I assume that this will remove all of the application data that makes up the images of all of the older restore points, right? How much will this free up? Is there a place to see this number?
Then, if worst comes to worst, I also assume that I could always restore from my Norton Ghost which resides on its own drive.
-
I use the Windows Disk Cleanup utility on every client system that I service. It is part of my Preventive Maintenance schedule.
The Items you asked about are definitely worth deleting if you are looking to recover disk space. I have had zero negative results from removing any of the items in the "more options" section.
Here is a bit I found about SSD performance;
The benchmarks are clear: Solid-state drives slow down as you fill them up. Fill your solid-state drive to near-capacity and its write performance will decrease dramatically. The reason why lies in the way SSDs and NAND Flash storage work.
Filling the drive to capacity is one of the things you should never do with a solid-state drive. A nearly full solid-state drive will have much slower write operations, slowing down your computer.
If you have a solid-state drive, you should try to avoid using more than 75% of its capacity. Buy a larger drive with more storage than you need and you’ll ensure that you always have consistent write performance.
Since this is in reference to an SSD, I would also recommend you tun off the indexing as it will decrease the life of the drive.
I have seen lots of great deals in the last week for 256 GB and larger SSD's. One of the best deals was the 480 GB Mushkin for $99. I scored 6 of them. (that was the limit)
-
I don't see any option to disable indexing on the SSD, my "C" drive, only data folders on my HDD, and frankly, that's where I search often anyway.
-
Within windows explorer, just right click on the C: drive, select Properties, then on the bottom deselect the check box.
Here:
-
and apply it to just Disk C or to Sub Files and Folders as well?
-
that setting applies to the entire C-drive. if you have other hard disks attached, you'll have to go deselect it there as well.
I also run CCleaner on my PCs
https://www.piriform.com/ccleaner (https://www.piriform.com/ccleaner)
cleans up the cache, and other junk.
-
that setting applies to the entire C-drive. if you have other hard disks attached, you'll have to go deselect it there as well.
I also run CCleaner on my PCs
https://www.piriform.com/ccleaner (https://www.piriform.com/ccleaner)
cleans up the cache, and other junk.
Nope, the next window demands that I make a choice about disabling index on the C drive, whether to include sub folders or not. That's the question. I assume yes.
As for disabling Indexing on my other drive(s) I'd rather not as I frequently use the search feature there.
-
Subfolders and files on the C: drive.
Your other drives, if not SSD you can leave them indexed.
-
Subfolders and files on the C: drive.
Your other drives, if not SSD you can leave them indexed.
As I intended, thanks
-
We use a handy little app called Clean My Mac 3. Works like a charm.
-
I doubt that will work on the PC.
-
We use a handy little app called Clean My Mac 3. Works like a charm.
I doubt that will work on the PC.
And besides, Widows actually provides all of the tools we need for this
-
Squeegie, where did you get that info on the SSD filling up slowing it down.
I have nothing to contest that, just doesn't seem right in my head and I'd like to read up on it.
Even platter drives will run till just about completely out before really showing any signs.... NTFS is WAY better and nothing like the old days.
I also vote for CCleaner as well as Malwarebytes (just as a precaution).
-
Squeegie, where did you get that info on the SSD filling up slowing it down.
I have nothing to contest that, just doesn't seem right in my head and I'd like to read up on it.
Even platter drives will run till just about completely out before really showing any signs.... NTFS is WAY better and nothing like the old days.
I also vote for CCleaner as well as Malwarebytes (just as a precaution).
I was also surprised (and disappointed) when learning of this trait, but found no shortage of references with a Google search.
This particular article (http://www.howtogeek.com/165542/why-solid-state-drives-slow-down-as-you-fill-them-up/) contains a link to some actual benchmark tests (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6489/playing-with-op)
-
I too had the impression that SSD's would give the same performance full vs empty....apparently not.
I found the SSD info here;
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjP9fm43MDNAhVKySYKHXSkD-8QFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.howtogeek.com%2F165542%2Fwhy-solid-state-drives-slow-down-as-you-fill-them-up%2F&usg=AFQjCNEb_DsUz49W9Due84jak7-bJqn01g (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjP9fm43MDNAhVKySYKHXSkD-8QFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.howtogeek.com%2F165542%2Fwhy-solid-state-drives-slow-down-as-you-fill-them-up%2F&usg=AFQjCNEb_DsUz49W9Due84jak7-bJqn01g)
-
Just buy a bigger SSD? They are cheap these days.
-
Just buy a bigger SSD? They are cheap these days.
It's true, in the three years since I got this box, SSD's have come way, way, way down. (66.6% in many cases)
Step one will be to get the nerve to tackle the task of the actual copying of the drive via step by step instructions. The physical swap doesn't scare me (quite)as much.
Step two will be to then stick this drive in an older laptop utilizing the dvd drive slot since it hasn't seen a disc in more than four years. That conversion should then be a simpler matter of copy or clone, and then change drives in the BIOS, right?
-
Just buy a bigger SSD? They are cheap these days.
It's true, in the three years since I got this box, SSD's have come way, way, way down. (66.6% in many cases)
Step one will be to get the nerve to tackle the task of the actual copying of the drive via step by step instructions. The physical swap doesn't scare me (quite)as much.
Step two will be to then stick this drive in an older laptop utilizing the dvd drive slot since it hasn't seen a disc in more than four years. That conversion should then be a simpler matter of copy or clone, and then change drives in the BIOS, right?
You mentioned having Norton Ghost, that makes it easy. Also many SSD drives come with a disc utility that will ghost/duplicate the drive for you with a few clicks then just a matter of shut down and swap drives.
-
nice thing if you clone the old drive to a new one, you have an option for recovering from catastrophic drive failure if the new one goes out.
(or at least something to get you by for a few days till you can get a replacement)
-J
-
For the past 8 years I have been using a program called Disk Keeper www.condusiv.com/products/diskeeper/ (http://www.condusiv.com/products/diskeeper/)
Of course I still use normal hard drives, but fragmentation is an issue on ANY drive due to how Windows likes to scatter crap all around. I can say that without a doubt that it makes a HUGE difference to my systems, which use 6 hard rives, 4 of them in RAID, one spare and a swap drive. You should read up on the site if the program will help with SSD's but I cannot see why not. Later this year I am planning to build a new system with 3 SSD's in a single RAID configuration, one as a dual boot Linux...hopefully I can keep my Disk Keeper program.
-
For the past 8 years I have been using a program called Disk Keeper [url=http://www.condusiv.com/products/diskeeper/]www.condusiv.com/products/diskeeper/[/url] ([url]http://www.condusiv.com/products/diskeeper/[/url])
Of course I still use normal hard drives, but fragmentation is an issue on ANY drive due to how Windows likes to scatter crap all around. I can say that without a doubt that it makes a HUGE difference to my systems, which use 6 hard rives, 4 of them in RAID, one spare and a swap drive. You should read up on the site if the program will help with SSD's but I cannot see why not. Later this year I am planning to build a new system with 3 SSD's in a single RAID configuration, one as a dual boot Linux...hopefully I can keep my Disk Keeper program.
It was my understanding that defragging is not suggested for SSD's
-
Frog is correct...do not use the defrag on SSD's.
If your system supports it use the TRIM function, or better yet, use the management software from the manufacturer of the SSD in your system.
-
Frog is correct...do not use the defrag on SSD's.
If your system supports it use the TRIM function, or better yet, use the management software from the manufacturer of the SSD in your system.
Could be, honestly I have not got into them yet mostly due to the cost per MB of storage, but now that prices are on par its part of my plan to use them on my next build later this year. That said, I did read up on the Disk Keeper site about using the program with SSD's and they claim that not only does it improve performance, which I can understand but it can also prolong the lifespan.
Disk Keeper is not your typical defrag tool. Its more like a database tool that looks at your files and keeps the ones you use most where the drive is the fastest. It actually PREVENTS on standard rives. Fragmentation on ANY type of drive results in poor performance. A drive is just a filing cabinet...keep all the files messed up, in crazy places its just common sense that it takes longer to find what you need.
Personally, I would look at specific tools for this as it turns out the Disk Keeper is not so hot with SSD's....read up here.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2047513/fragging-wonderful-the-truth-about-defragging-your-ssd.html (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2047513/fragging-wonderful-the-truth-about-defragging-your-ssd.html)
-
Frog is correct...do not use the defrag on SSD's.
If your system supports it use the TRIM function, or better yet, use the management software from the manufacturer of the SSD in your system.
Could be, honestly I have not got into them yet mostly due to the cost per MB of storage, but now that prices are on par its part of my plan to use them on my next build later this year. That said, I did read up on the Disk Keeper site about using the program with SSD's and they claim that not only does it improve performance, which I can understand but it can also prolong the lifespan.
Disk Keeper is not your typical defrag tool. Its more like a database tool that looks at your files and keeps the ones you use most where the drive is the fastest. It actually PREVENTS on standard rives. Fragmentation on ANY type of drive results in poor performance. A drive is just a filing cabinet...keep all the files messed up, in crazy places its just common sense that it takes longer to find what you need.
Personally, I would look at specific tools for this as it turns out the Disk Keeper is not so hot with SSD's....read up here.
[url]http://www.pcworld.com/article/2047513/fragging-wonderful-the-truth-about-defragging-your-ssd.html[/url] ([url]http://www.pcworld.com/article/2047513/fragging-wonderful-the-truth-about-defragging-your-ssd.html[/url])
The mfr should provide utilities, and the firmware in a good SSD will do most of the heavy lifting--they almost need to be fragged, in a way, since you do not want to rewrite the same sections over and over, but rather write each sector an equal amount of times as the 'drive' ages.
On an SSD there is no benefit to 'defragging', since random access is just as fast (or very, very nearly,) as sequential. There is no head that needs to seek, there are no 'cylinders' that deliver data faster or slower, it's really a misnomer to call them 'drives' to begin with.