Pegasus (MVP) wrote:
> "VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message
> news:OcjLOjFuIHA.4736@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> "Pegasus (MVP)" wrote in <news:u5nV18EuIHA.4528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>:
>>
>>> "rick s" <ricks@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4C4390A7-08CB-4E70-9695-FF9880DA1801@microsoft.com...
>>>> Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of
>>>> destroying your hard drive. Is this true?
>>>
>>> There is a small risk of damaging your file system while
>>> defragging, e.g. when you suffer a power failure right in
>>> the middle. I think defragging once a month is plenty. Any
>>> more often would make no measurable difference but
>>> would increase the risk.
>>
>> I believe the use of journaling with NTFS compensates for that loss, and
>> also if the content of the hard disk's PCB write buffers aren't flushed
>> to the platters, too. Another reason to use NTFS rather than FAT. NTFS
>> can use its journal log to determine how to return the disk to a
>> consistent state upon recovery.
>
> I am aware of this mechanism. It appears to work most of the time
> but once every so often we get a post in this newsgroup that reports
> a thrashed filing system after an interrupted defrag.

Which indicates the journaling actually failed? Wow. Well, maybe its
not all that unexpected.

Admitedly the overhead of NTFS has it advantages here, over FAT. I'll
have to concede that. :-)