which is the best zone to put mft+folders?

[drugo]

Hi
i use a script made by a great user Darlis

is this

Code:

Title('folders')
Description(" Optimizes system files and directories only")

VolumeSelect
  CommandlineVolumes()
  and Removable(no)
  and Writable(yes)
  and Mounted(yes)
VolumeActions

  /* Place files at 30% into the data on the disk. */
  MakeGap(RoundUp(VolumeUsed * 0.3,VolumeSize * 0.01), DoNotVacate)

  /* Zone 1: Place the MFT and some other special NTFS files. */
  FileSelect
    SelectNtfsSystemFiles(yes)
  FileActions
    PlaceNtfsSystemFiles(Ascending,MftSize * 0.1)
  FileEnd

  /* Zone 2: Directories. */
  FileSelect
    Directory(yes)
  FileActions
    SortByName(Ascending)
  FileEnd

VolumeEnd

but where is the best zone of the partition to put them ?

thanks

[WHRoeder]

but where is the best zone of the partition to put them ?

The code you posted is identical to the stock scripts as far as the MFT is concerned. Why do you think the stock scripts would not be optimal?

[drugo]

but where is the best zone of the partition to put them ?

The code you posted is identical to the stock scripts as far as the MFT is concerned. Why do you think the stock scripts would not be optimal?

because it moves the mft and the folders always in a different places

[poutnik]

but where is the best zone of the partition to put them ?

The code you posted is identical to the stock scripts as far as the MFT is concerned. Why do you think the stock scripts would not be optimal?

because it moves the mft and the folders always in a different places

Because best position is closely related to personal preference what is best position
and furthermore according to some criteria it changes all the time.

So, if not satisfied with default criteria,
choose what is best position for you and use it in your script.

[Kasuha]

As far as I know, current position where standard scripts move MFT to is set up according to Microsoft research during which it was figured out that the disk is providing about the best performance when MFT is placed approximately at 30% of the used disk size.

[poutnik]

I agree, concerning built-in defragmentators.
But I think it does not count with significant file distribution bias in MyDefrag.
30% of used area is often far deep in spacehog area, especially in single partition scenario.

[Kasuha]

I agree, concerning built-in defragmentators.
But I think it does not count with significant file distribution bias in MyDefrag.
30% of used area is often far deep in spacehog area, especially in single partition scenario.

I agree but nobody has performed similar research considering MyDefrag disk layout yet and placing MFT at 30% of the disk is sure better than placing it directly at the start of the disk.
Even among spacehogs there is quite a lot of frequently used files and don't forget that any new files on the disk have good chance of appearing even behind spacehogs at least until you run another daily optimization.
Personally I believe placing MFT and directories right in between programs zone and spacehogs would be better but the performance gain would not be really great and filebooleans needed to make current zones 1 and 2 into zones 4 and 5 would make the script yet again harder to read.

[poutnik]

I agree but nobody has performed similar research considering MyDefrag disk layout yet and placing MFT at 30% of the disk is sure better than placing it directly at the start of the disk.
Even among spacehogs there is quite a lot of frequently used files and don't forget that any new files on the disk have good chance of appearing even behind spacehogs at least until you run another daily optimization.
Personally I believe placing MFT and directories right in between programs zone and spacehogs would be better but the performance gain would not be really great and filebooleans needed to make current zones 1 and 2 into zones 4 and 5 would make the script yet again harder to read.

Microsoft research cannot be easily applied to MyDefrag as conditions are very different. There is also other approach, maybe from MS too, maybe from other source - not handy: 30% of used area, but not more then 3 GB. For random placement the optimum would be near 50%. For slightly biased placement as MS utilities do the estimation is in good correlation with MS 30% suggestion. For highly biased placement as MyDefrag does 30% is too much. I agree placing MFT/folders closer to begin than 30% of used area will deoptimize placement for some files, but will optimize it in general.

It is impossible to calculate optimum as placement average weighed by access and filesize. But its rough estimation can be easily imagined. Even if among spacehogs are frequently accessed files, this center would be hardly there. Furthermore positioniong MFT in spacehog zone increases probability of file creation there or above.

Optimization of system usually means some its part are sacrified to create somewhere bigger gain than lost.
I am not sure nice looking script is good criteria for MFT placement.   

Personally I use also semispacehog zone for accessed spacehog.

[Darlis]

I agree but nobody has performed similar research considering MyDefrag disk layout yet and placing MFT at 30% of the disk is sure better than placing it directly at the start of the disk.

I (unintentionally) made a test where the MFT is placed at 30% (~4GB, Standard Monthly) and at 15% (2GB, Optimized Monthly) into the used space. As you can see in the benchmarks, there is only a very slight increase in performance.

[poutnik]

I agree but nobody has performed similar research considering MyDefrag disk layout yet and placing MFT at 30% of the disk is sure better than placing it directly at the start of the disk.

I (unintentionally) made a test where the MFT is placed at 30% (~4GB, Standard Monthly) and at 15% (2GB, Optimized Monthly) into the used space. As you can see in the benchmarks, there is only a very slight increase in performance.

Can file placement script difference interfere ? ( Not studied the script details )
I have read somewhere in MS docs about 7-10% performance gain, being 3 GB off the start, compared to very start position.
I guess putting it upper the difference goes smaller fast.

[poutnik]

I (unintentionally) made a test where the MFT is placed at 30% (~4GB, ) and at 15% (2GB ) into the used space.  As you can see in the benchmarks, there is only a very slight increase in performance.

It could be they were both on comparable good places. If 30% is 4GB, then it does not matter, it is good placement. if 30% is 120 GB, it can be different.

[Darlis]

Can file placement script difference interfere ? ( Not studied the script details )

The scripts are almost identical. In the Optimized Monthly the MFT is placed at 2GB and the gaps are smaller.
2GB vs. 4GB placement is not much, maybe I'm going to make a test with the MFT placed further away, to simulate a much more filled disk.

[drugo]

Can file placement script difference interfere ? ( Not studied the script details )

The scripts are almost identical. In the Optimized Monthly the MFT is placed at 2GB and the gaps are smaller.
2GB vs. 4GB placement is not much, maybe I'm going to make a test with the MFT placed further away, to simulate a much more filled disk.

but always move the files mft+ folder , in the beginning or in the middle or in the end of the data
it 's weird
i know

[Merit Support]

As far as I know, current position where standard scripts move MFT to is set up according to Microsoft research during which it was figured out that the disk is providing about the best performance when MFT is placed approximately at 30% of the used disk size.

Microsoft did research relocating the MFT to avoid corruption, not performance.  By locating the file approximately 30% inside the disk, file corruption was reduced over 90%.  I never knew about the purpose of this placement until I heard a Microsoft engineer explain it at a local conference for IT professionals.  He is said it was one of the most impactful biggest and easiest fixes they ever developed.  It is all about the physical disk, not the partition.  If the partition is not near the outside edge, then reliability is not an issue.
   
Of course, an uncorrupted MFT does perform much better than a corrupt one.

[quanthero]

As far as I know, current position where standard scripts move MFT to is set up according to Microsoft research during which it was figured out that the disk is providing about the best performance when MFT is placed approximately at 30% of the used disk size.

Microsoft did research relocating the MFT to avoid corruption, not performance.  By locating the file approximately 30% inside the disk, file corruption was reduced over 90%.  I never knew about the purpose of this placement until I heard a Microsoft engineer explain it at a local conference for IT professionals.  He is said it was one of the most impactful biggest and easiest fixes they ever developed.  It is all about the physical disk, not the partition.  If the partition is not near the outside edge, then reliability is not an issue.
   
Of course, an uncorrupted MFT does perform much better than a corrupt one.

Very interesting! So are you saying that corruption is more likely to happen on the outer edge of the disk? If so, why is this the case?