![]() |
|||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have cloned the drive and restored back after cancellation but it seems to me that nothing has changed in terms of speed. Is Superduper actually using the same cylinders / areas when restoring or on an empty drive behavior should be different?
Best Regards Pasha |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
No, we don't use the same cylinders. The files area is roughly defragmented because -- when you erase -- when we copy the files back, they're all defragmented (although not necessarily "optimized").
But, defragmenting doesn't necessarily mean "speed increase"... the OS is pretty good about keeping files pretty defragmented, and the hot files cache does a good job too...
__________________
--Dave Nanian |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
![]() |
Tags |
defragment |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cloning to defragment and Time Machine | D60Dave | General | 4 | 03-03-2010 10:18 AM |
Does Erase-then-Copy defragment as it transfers? | mtreder88 | General | 1 | 05-05-2008 01:12 PM |