> Are you kidding? A fraggy fast disk on NTFS is accessed
> faster than a fraggy slow disk on FAT32 but it's still slowed
> by being fraggy. The impact on files that have a low level
> of access might be insignificant but, with a database file,
> disk fragmentation adds progressively more levels of
> indirection over and above the internal indirections in
> effect *within* the database file(s).
>
> One thing I have observed with fraggy NTFS disks and the
> shipped defrag utility is that you have to defrag it twice to
> get it done properly. At least, that's the case on my Win2K
> systems, where the RAM isn't enormous.
>
> ./heLen

Yep. The diskeeper engine(licensed by Microsoft for the W2k/XP defrag) isn't
real efficient. Needs a fair bit of free space to work effectively, and
requires multiple passes to do the job.

There is one that works very well. Uses the same disk access API's as
diskeeper/w2k defrag, and all other defrag engines. It's just a pity about
it's name - 'DIRMS'. It stands for 'Do It Right Microsoft' - shocking name,
but a brilliant defrag. Text based, can be scheduled, and I use it on
production machines while FB's hammering - defrags occur many abstraction
layers under the filesystem, so Firebird's never been affected while I've
been doing it.

But heed Ann's warning - try to shut the DB down first if other's have
experienced problems.

N.