IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New re SSD -vs- "defrag" lengthy blog report in Winders forum
here.

(I can't believe I read the Whole Thing (just checkin that the little-grey cells Can regress back to the minutiae as is the bugaboo of Doin reel-Science™®))
and sadly.. all that stuff is still in the neurons :-/

So then, as Peter is firmly ensconced within das Neue Vindows scheming (und may not pay much attention to Us Elitists' over-priced Alt-machines?)

Does any one have an educated guess re How ... 'zackly as possible? ... my El Capitan V.10-11.6 is behaving towards er "re-TRIM"
.. and the other not-to-be-ignored sub-plots of this intricate dance? I take away from the above that: any solution which (knows or misinterprets.. latest concepts of defragging) and which leads a one to Turn-Off all mentions of that word in System: is prolly Rong as can be. But as the lengthy colloquy above makes er Clear: even this discussion leads authentic-Pros there: unSatisfied. Y'know?

At least.. OS X does recognize the installation of the SSD, so it must be doing SOMETHING re the detritus generated in Normal SSD operations. I believe that.. we no longer Can believe that, er $$$Apple Corps always Will still Do the Right Thing, especially as Corp-profits soar--while they slip in that regard--thus, why expect World Class preventive-sleuthing? Eh?

Hope this is good for a giggle, anyway.. I'd like to believe that the OS-guys knew all that stuff and coded appropriately. Meanwhile the SSD has sent me no messages, so shall continue to ignore it, as the outer-world machine-guns its-own-feet [/Scale/Relativity]

Gracias for any fodder.
New To be sure: that is NTFS specific
i.e. it has nothing to do with being on an SSD. It is due to the technical limitations of NTFS.

The main driver would be the file system in use.

HFS+ (most likely on El Capitan) was designed to resist defragmentation on old skool drives. APFS (High Sierra) OTOH, seems to have issues when running on spinning rust v. SSD.
New OK then.. the topic is still in Limbo at The Great Sphere in Cupertino :-/
Dunno if the (lengthy.. it seemed) upgrade to the best that my early '09 iMac can accommodate: included a full disk *reformat? (I did see in Console some refs to a massive dance with some Cloud repository;) mayhap thus: they saved a whole my-data disk-image for re-install ..but what do I know re their machinations of late.

* which, in the event, via SSD would have happened in a trice, natch. I still think it boggling that.. so many GBytes can be shuffled about automagically via my tiny coax, with nary a CRC-error all along.. along.. alo
New I would not worry too much
Upgrades are in place with on the fly conversion of HFS -> HFS+ -> APFS (High Sierra only). The observed cloud activity was likely the update manager pulling down the latest security packages. Unless you have a trivial amount of data, uploading an entire disk would take a very noticeable time on the average residential broadband connection.

Defrag-wise, HFS+ on SSD doesn't need it. On HDD, very large files (like virtual machine guest image) may suffer and need rearranging (but it may be simpler to keep an unadulterated copy and just clone the VM when it becomes unwieldy.)

If you're worried about wear leveling, take a look at disabling sleep & suspend. The default setting dumps the entire memory image to disk every time you close the lid.
New Thanks again, seems that my modest needs are close-enough default. Nice :-)
     re SSD -vs- "defrag" lengthy blog report in Winders forum - (Ashton) - (4)
         To be sure: that is NTFS specific - (scoenye) - (3)
             OK then.. the topic is still in Limbo at The Great Sphere in Cupertino :-/ - (Ashton) - (2)
                 I would not worry too much - (scoenye) - (1)
                     Thanks again, seems that my modest needs are close-enough default. Nice :-) -NT - (Ashton)

Very punk.
48 ms