This is a gentle reminder, to run your Summer Defragment on your

i didn't think anyone on /g/ was stupid enough to think they needed to defrag an SSD, but good luck OP

>>56008457
does this annihilate the ssd or just wears it down

>>56008457
>he thinks he doesn't need to defrag his SSD

It's not our problem if you don't want your computer running at peak performance.

>>56008478
Wears it down.

>>56008478
the SSD can only make some number of writes to each block before it becomes unreliable for later retrieval (that limit has grown significantly in the past 5 years, but moreover SSDs use algorithms to write to blocks somewhat more evenly so you don't find some blocks unusable prematurely).

the gist is that defragmenting an SSD will just cause it to write to blocks quite a lot. i suspect it would drop the lifespan of the SSD significantly, but i'd be shocked if anyone's SSD stopped working after a night of it. i'm not sure if defragging software would just get confused and defrag an SSD indefinitely though, and in that case yeah eventually your SSD would fail.

this isn't like shooting yourself in the face, but more like doing meth or something. it's clearly not good for you, and your life will get noticeably shorter if you do it, but it probably won't end tonight.

>>56008543
Well said sir

>>56008543
>>56008526
SSD lifetimes are of no concern to desktop users anymore. Samsung SSDs are rated at over 40GB of writes per day for something like 8 years.

>>56008581
I would agree that newer SSDs are more resilient. Not everyone has those new SSDs though, and they still get worn down, and basically they get worn down by performing an action that's completely unnecessary since you don't see any positive outcome from defragmenting a SSD, other than personal autism fix when you know - or think - that all your files are arranged in one neat order.

>>56008640
Defragmenting your SSD means that files are arranged more sequentially than before, providing gains in performance and lifetime.

>>56008653
>>56008485
What these guys said

>>56008653
Thank you for your input.

>>56008581
true, but if you've got ~100GB of data and your defragmenter gets confused and just moves shit around indefinitely until you stop it (the more i think about it the more i think this is unlikely, but i like to imagine/prepare for the worst case scenario), then we're not taking 40GB per day, but ~200MB per second (or 720GB per hour — again, this is just moving the same 100GB of data around over and over again). your SSD would "only" survive around 6 days of that.

i feel like now that i've quantified the risk, i need to downplay it somewhat; the chance are very low that your defrag software would pull a retarded moment and go non-stop. it's more likely that it would neatly re-arrange everything into the blocks and then say it was done, having affected your SSD's lifespan negatively, but in a somewhat negligible way in the long term (maybe like doing meth once - not gonna kill you, but definitely going to harm you). even if it DOES run non-stop, you would have to let it keep going for nearly a full week before it would start to report that it was becoming unreliably at writing data.

the point here is that you wouldn't just have to be as stupid as the OP to do this; you'd have to be even more stupid than that - you'd have to be willing to ignore your best instincts for literally a full goddamn week.

>>56008640
true, but now we're trying to guess the demographics of users. my hunch is that early adopters of SSDs who are browsing /g/ (this is the simplification of what you said, i think) probably know better than to listen to a "gentle reminder" from an idiot on /g/.

>>56008697
This is just complete nonsense. Defragmenter running a full week? Going endlessly? Are you running Windows 95?

>>56008451
You put no effort into that bait at all.

>>56008711
yeah i feel like i caveated why i don't think that would happen, but imagining some defragmentation software completely bungling everything and not correctly handling the fact that it's interacting with an SSD, and you have that kind of outcome.

i also specifically said "i like to imagine/prepare for the worst case scenario". if i was preparing for the most likely outcome, then i'd have said
>hey, the software will probably notice that you shouldn't be doing this with an SSD in the first place, throw up an error, and the user will be saved
but that's not an interesting discussion to have about the longevity of SSDs and write cycles. that's a very boring discussion to have about prompts to prevent a user from metaphorically blasting their face off.

>>56008640
Defragging your SSD once will do basically nothing.

Keeping your SSD permanently defragged (i.e. running it daily) will probably have an effect of somewhere between 1x and 2x write amplification, or a 0-50% reduction in lifespan.

>>56008742
That's the type of accuracy we all love to see

>>56008734
If that was the case then you wouldn't defragment HDDs either because they die too from too many writes. SSDs last longer than HDDs now.

>>56008581
I read some torture test where the result was like 100 GB per day for the lenght of your whole life on Samsung SSD.

>>56008849
Wouldn't be surprised. The numbers I gave are quite old.

>>56008786
HDDs can die from too many writes, but the leading cause of death is the spin up and spin down of the platters, and especially shit like off-axis movement.

File: captain hook and the biker gorilla.jpg (10KB, 275x183px)

10KB, 275x183px

>All these cunts nerding out, trying to flex their brain muscles on a pseudonymous Nepalese Non La enthusiast board.
>None of them realize this was a trap for summer /v/agrancy

2/10. I expected better /g/.

>>56008898
OP thought he was baiting when in fact what he posted was true

>Defragging an SSD
>Implying you even have such a retarded option on a modern OS instead of optimization
Oh wait, you are using a deprecated relic like WIn 7 aren't you? :^)

>>56008898
did you not see the first reply?

File: 01d.png (9KB, 400x600px)

9KB, 400x600px

>>56008451
Windows does that automatically.
OSX and Linux do not use defrag.

>>56008640
A 3 year old SSD will easily last you until it's too small to be any real use and be replaced before it wears down.

>>56008451
>defraging
>ever

this is why I don't use windows

>>56009425
OSX and linux don't need defragmenting because they don't store files fragmented in the first place

>>56008640
Yeah you're right, these old SSDs will only last 20 years of medium-heavy usage instead of 200

I'll fstrim my hard disk instead.

>>56009685
Can't.

>>56008457
Enjoy your pc when it gets to critical file fragmentation (it's a real thing)

If you use Linux, you never have to defrag ;)

What a sad attempt.

>>56008485
Been 3 years, Still good performance