XP allows me to defragment drives other than my hard drive. I am unable to
find that capability on my Vista. Is it available and how would I access it.
Thanks.

url:http://www.ureader.com/gp/1279-1.aspx

This is the XP group and you have no problems in XP. Perhaps if you ask
about the problem in the Vista group, you will receive a Vista answer?

Michael Lanier wrote:

Michael Lanier wrote:
http://ask-leo.com/can_a_usb_thumbdrive_wear_out.html
Seems to imply that excessive use by a database application (or defrag)
might wear out a thumbdrive. I'd think twice.

I only use mine for archive of utilities I install after a reload.
Those little tweaks and tools.

Big Al wrote:

Flash memory have a finite number of write cycles, as for the database
not an issue if mostly reads. On the other hand defragging a flash drive
is an exercise in futility, no moving parts.

Bob I wrote:
Which will really be cool when solid state hard drives get larger and
cheaper. No defrag ever!!!!

Big Al wrote:

That won't stop the snake oil clowns from claiming it's beneficial.

Michael Lanier wrote:
I don't know if it's supposed to be available in Vista or not, and as bob
and big al say, it's likely to cause more harm than good anyway. If you
simply won't be able to sleep tonight because you've heard that failing to
defrag a drive allows the communists to win or something, then copying the
data off the drive, reformatting it and placing the data back on would have
the effect of defragging a conventional hard disk with less wear and tear,
and so might make you feel good if you do it to your flash disk.

"Michael Lanier" wrote in
<news:0a85f12c8e9f42d79f10e0b727be1849@newspe.com> :

You think there is a miniature platter spinning inside that thumb drive
that needs to be defragmented?

Michael Lanier wrote:
Never defragment a flash drive. It will shorten the lifespan of the
drive and there will be no benefit to doing this.

--
Robert Pendell
shinji@elite-systems.org

"A perfect world is one of chaos."

Thawte Web of Trust Notary
CAcert Assurer

"Michael Lanier" <jamaica@charter.net> wrote in message
news:0a85f12c8e9f42d79f10e0b727be1849@newspe.com.. .
Under any operating system, I would be reluctant to defragment any FLASH
memory drive for 2 reasons.

1. The multiple file fragment shifts that are required during any defragment
operation are going to severely tax the limited life of the FLASH memory
blocks (limited to an *average* of 1000 erase/write cycles).

2. These devices are slow enough that any speed gain is not going to be very
significant.

"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message
news:fvqj6q$7f4$1@registered.motzarella.org...
In spite of your comment, FLASH memory drives do become fragmented just like
disc based drives do, and for exectly the same reasons. However, as noted,
there is little to gain and a lot to lose by defragmenting a FLASH based
drive.

M.I.5¾ wrote:
Is that documented somewhere? Or does it vary all over the place?

Updated below...

Bill in Co. wrote:
Actually, I just spent a bit of time looking this lifetime thing up now, and
I'm seeing articles mentioning 10,000 - 100,000 erase/write cycles, not
1000. So while it's true that defragging will tap into this a bit,
occasionally doing it probably wouldn't be all that harmful (although there
isn't much point).

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OIyM5SOsIHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
in excess of 100,000 write cycles. One with 1000 write cycles probably
wouldn't last much more than a day on a heavily used computer.

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OIyM5SOsIHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
There is confusion because there are 2 lives associated with FLASH memory
cells. The regular memory blocks (the ones that actually hold the data) are
lifed for an average of 1000 erase/write cycles. These blocks are utilised
on a rotating basis to ensure that the least recently erased and written
block is the next one to be erased and written (this is called 'wear
levelling' and is designed to extend the life as far as possible). However,
every FLASH memory device also has a block that holds the houskeeping data
such as the FATs and in which block the data is actually held. This block
has to have a much greater life because it has to be completely erased and
rewritten every time the memory is altered. It is this block that is lifed
for 100,000 erase write cycles. The architecture of FLASH memory cells is
designed to keep the cost down as much as possible, and it is a fact of
these devices that if one block fails (be it data or houskeeping), the whole
memory device is rendered useless.

Fortunately it is only the erase/write that is life limited. If the memory
can be written and verified, then the read life is, thankfully, relatively
infinite. That makes this type of memory ideal for holding device firmware
that may be updated relatively infrequently, but its use in USB thumb
drives, though not ideal, is considered acceptable because the low cost of
the memory means that the drives can be cheaply replaced when a failure does
occur. I have got through several.

If you have ever watched the graphic representation of file fragment
movements that occur when a drive is defragmented, you will appreciate that
a FLASH drive will get one hell of workout as the defragmentation proceeds.

So then it will last for about 100 days. :-) I'm still not sold on the
trade-off between the improved performance and the limited life of the
device that makes it possible.

Is anyone using Readyboost that can testify to the lifetime of the memory?

-John O

M.I.5¾ wrote:
Do you have a site for this low figure today? I'm not finding it.

Right. I've read that. But again, from the user's point of view, I
don't think it comes down to 1000 erase/write cycles. (The figures I've
been seeing are 10 to 100 times that, at least as I recall, even for this -
10,000 - 100,000).

Or was, in the past?

But I think they have some recovery algorithms built into the UFD to handle
some of these potential contingencies.

Robert Pendell wrote:
I'll add that if you want to "defragment" a drive then do this by first
copying the files off of the drive, doing a quick format, then copying
them back. When written they will be done so in sequential order and
the files will end up together. with no fragmentation.

--
Robert Pendell
shinji@elite-systems.org

"A perfect world is one of chaos."

Thawte Web of Trust Notary
CAcert Assurer

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23M7umMhsIHA.1768@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
We use these memories to hold firmware in avionic equipment. The life data
is freely available in the manufacturer's reliability data. Airborne
approved devices don't have any longer life than the more normal FLASH
memory devices. The life doesn't cause any problem on normal service
equipment because we have to verify the load after writing. However, on
development equipment the FLASH device can often fail with the frequent
rewrites that occur (often the whole device as firmware changes).

I was going to link to some data or information, but the internet is down
here at present.

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23M7umMhsIHA.1768@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
FLASH memories that are used like disc drives (like USB thumb drives) rotate
the blocks. So that whereas each block may have a 1000 erase/write life,
the overall memory has a much longer life because the actual wear is shared
out. Thus the memory can have a practical life much longer than the
individual block life. But the way in which the memory is used can
influence that. We wear out FLASH memories quite quickly, because we have
to write firmware back into the whole memory (thus subjecting all the blocks
to an erase/write cycle in one swoop). Since the *average* life of a block
is 1000 cycles, in any memory device, on average half the blocks have a
shorter life, and there is therefore a good chance that an individual memory
device will contain such blocks. Not so infrequently a memory is
encountered that has a very short life indeed.