No.

It should be these days. The way i gather, more modern HDDs now have smart enough management software to eliminate the need for defrag. Or so i'm told.

>>54465275
do you even know what defragmentation means? do you know how it works?

>>54465285
This should be /thread

>>54465275
depends on FS

>>54465275
>Using a filesystem that needs defragging

>>54465275
> uses a file system that fragments

Doesn't Win 7 and onwards defrag itself anyway?

>using windows
wew

Not using SSD's

>>54465295
Except harddrives are supposed to be agnostic of the filesystem on them and fragmentation is a filesystem issue the storage medium shouldn't be aware of.

If you show me a disk that is defrag-aware, I will instantly proceed to never buy it.

All a /g/entooman needs to know about defragging:
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37670_01/E37355/html/ol_use_case1_btrfs.html

>>54465275
If you use NTFS, then no.

You need to defrag in order to move recently accessed files up front. If you don't defrag, then your HDD has to take more time to locate those files.

>>54465671
Been using NTFS for 20 years without any issues.

>>54466008
It's more about files being scattered around in multiple places. Even that doesn't really matter if a large file is broken into a few contiguous pieces. The real problem is when you get files that are broken into dozens or hundreds of tiny little pieces in a completely random order all over the disk.

The best thing to do is just schedule a background job (with mydefrag for example, it's scriptable) that runs every few hours and does only 1 thing: quickly defrags only fragged files. No optimizations or anything, just find the files that are not continuous and fit them into the first hole where they can be put continuously. That solves 99% of the problem with 1% of the work.

No, you fucking retard.

>>54465275
It is exept on SSDs