US 20090113160A1 (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2009/0113160 A1 Ferraro (43) Pub. Date: Apr. 30, 2009

(54) METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR Publication Classi?cation REORGANIZING A STORAGE DEVICE (51) Int. Cl. G06F 12/00 (2006.01) (75) Inventorl Robert Laurence Ferraro, Myrtle (52) us. Cl...... 711/170; 711/E12.001 Beach’ SC (Us) (57) ABSTRACT Correspondence Address; A method and system for reorganizing a storage device such BRUCE E_ HAYDEN P_C_ as a disk drive or partition thereof represents the storage P_0_ BOX 205 ’ device as a set of concentric circles, With each circle contain _ ing blocks of storage With the concentric circles having a BILLION’ CO 80435 0205 (Us) differing numbers of blocks of storage resulting in differing radii of the concentric circles. More frequently used ?les are (73) Assignee: Disk Trix Incorporated, a South moved towards the outer circles With larger radii, and less Carolina corporation, Myrtle frequently used, often archival, ?les are moved to the inner Beach, SC (U S) circles of lesser radius, all under user control. Additionally, the storage device is represented similarly as concentric _ circles of blocks of storage, With the blocks displayed poten (21) Appl' NO" 11/924’585 tially containing parts of multiple ?les, and ?les being con tained in multiple blocks. Users can Zoom in or out, With more (22) Filed; Oct. 25, 2007 or feWer blocks displayed. Patent Application Publication Apr. 30, 2009 Sheet 1 0f 14 US 2009/0113160 A1

PROCESSOR

MEMORY

FIG. 1 Patent Application Publication Apr. 30, 2009 Sheet 2 0f 14 US 2009/0113160 A1

43 40/ FIG. 2 Patent Application Publication Apr. 30, 2009 Sheet 3 0f 14 US 2009/0113160 A1 Patent Application Publication Apr. 30, 2009 Sheet 4 0f 14 US 2009/0113160 A1 Patent Application Publication Apr. 30, 2009 Sheet 5 0f 14 US 2009/0113160 A1 Patent Application Publication Apr. 30, 2009 Sheet 6 0f 14 US 2009/0113160 A1 Patent Application Publication Apr. 30, 2009 Sheet 7 0f 14 US 2009/0113160 A1 Patent Application Publication Apr. 30, 2009 Sheet 8 0f 14 US 2009/0113160 A1

82a225% Mm.“NSFun?sgeéaiaz m:585E6“58 ina:5e8229am:m 8%??858NEE. g3Q222%53 gall”Ggm gold23 5603K “mm533032.55 Patent Application Publication Apr. 30, 2009 Sheet 9 0f 14 US 2009/0113160 A1

~723%72“.8:352%:.8508x03 aowmgow

i.w 3 Patent Application Publication Apr. 30, 2009 Sheet 10 0f 14 US 2009/0113160 A1

£834...... 7

3%..15m ; . . éé5mm , .

uwwEo3

325 Patent Application Publication Apr. 30, 2009 Sheet 11 0f 14 US 2009/0113160 A1

9%.?”[email protected]%2 529.56%3E

Patent Application Publication Apr. 30, 2009 Sheet 13 0f 14 US 2009/0113160 A1

erragmentation View lTools H =

DRIVE 0: ' F?e count 274557 89555 MB/_114 mass 37236 MB"—1 15 103 Fragmented files“. 198 32418 MB’—1 16 Degree of fragmentation 47.47e>:-—-—1 17

\Q Fragmented f?espnly 1 24_ \ \@ Conéoiidaie 104 < \fi Folder/File name I/CQ ?eoency

Maximum resource usage 7. 105 { Start

|i

llnkwalzomer're , .OUTLFLTBLDLL ,

.luproxyaa .vakvozmrgdll IImSCCoIeAII .CPSAlhumU biecladll .ZbProxySluhdll .CPSAIbumBrowaerQdll .DVDFiIeHelpet.dll

FIG. 17‘ Patent Application Publication Apr. 30, 2009 Sheet 14 0f 14 US 2009/0113160 A1 US 2009/0113160 A1 Apr. 30, 2009

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR system CP/M that Was conceptually derived form UNIX. As REORGANIZING A STORAGE DEVICE a result, ?les early on Were capable of dynamic groWth, and again consisted of disk fragments logically chained together. FIELD OF THE INVENTION Norton Speedisk discussed beloW Was probably the premier defragmentation program designed for DOS ?le systems. A [0001] The present invention generally relates to computer decade or so after the introduction of the personal computer, software and, more speci?cally, to utility softWare for defrag Microsoft introduced a more modern ?le architecture With its menting and optimizing computer disk drives. NT operating system, termed the NT File System (“NTFS”) Which is the current ?le system currently run by the vast BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION majority of computers in the World. [0002] Hard disk drives have long been capable of storing [0006] Previous defragmentation technologies have prima multiple ?les on one disk. The need for disk space in a ?le can rily focused on the fragmentation of ?les on the hard drive vary over time, With some disk ?les groWing over time. One With little focus on the speci?c placement of ?les on the hard solution to this problem implemented by IBM Corporation drive. for its mainframe computers Was to require that users guess at [0007] Microsoft Corporation has provided its customers a the maximum siZe their ?les could groW, and then allocate free defragmenter With their WindoWs operating system With that much space in advance. That Was great for IBM, since it its NT line of operating systems. The standard defragmenter made as much money selling its disk drives as it did its included in WindoWs XP is quite rudimentary. It is a multi computers. But it Was less advantageous for its customers. pass defragmentation since it defragments ?les but does not [0003] One solution to this problem of such an inef?cient fully consolidate the data and actually requires multiple passes to consolidate the data. The hard drive is typically left usage of disk drive space, especially at a time When disk in a far from optimiZed state With considerable free space drives Were often more expensive than automobiles, Was implemented by Sperry Univac for its mainframe computers, fragmentation and ?les placed on the drive in no particular Which alloWed for dynamic ?le siZe by chaining ?le segments order to achieve increased performance aside from the together. The operating system Would attempt to allocate a defragmentation of fragmented ?les. [0008] The PerfectDisk defragmenter from Raxco aims to neW ?le in one piece, but if it could not do so, it Would do so in pieces, logically chained together. It also alloWed ?les to reduce subsequent defragmentation times and seek con?ne groW in siZe by chaining more ?le segments together. These ment. HoWever does not perform any sorting of ?les. It ?le segments are hereinafter termed “fragments” and a ?le merely segregates ?les based upon last access times but does containing a plurality of such “fragments” is termed “frag not appear to attempt to consider the drive performance and mented”. Sperry implemented another feature that ultimately does not explicitly seek to place ?les for high performance. resulted in numerous fragmented ?les, and that Was the ability US. Pat. No. 5,398,142 is an example of some of the tech to have ?les in its directories be actually located on backup nology implemented in PerfectDisk. storage, typically magnetic tape. Then, When a user requested [0009] 0&0 Defrag is a defragmentation tool that provides a variety of sorting options but again does not seek to optimiZe access to such a ?le, it Was “rolled in” to the hard drive, With other ?les “rolled out” to tape to make room. The problem seek con?nement With all ?les being handled as a Whole. This can result in long defragmentation times and sorting times. Was that, given the cost of disk drives at that time, they Were [0010] Diskeeper is a defragmentation tool that does often overcommitted, often With signi?cantly more ?le space attempt to improve seek con?nement and does segregate ?les allocated than disk space Was available. The result, as Will be seen beloW, is that ?les often became signi?cantly frag based upon frequency of use. No particular sorting of ?les is mented as they Were allocated on almost full disk drives. The done and ?les are merely segregated based upon frequency of solution to this signi?cant fragmentation problem Was to roll use and rarely used ?les are placed at the sloWer inner tracks and frequently used ?les to the outer tracks. a lot of ?les out to tape, creating large unallocated spaces on the disk drives, and then When the ?les Were rolled back onto [0011] Norton Speedisk is a defragmentation tool that the disks, they Would typically be less fragmented. This attempts to categoriZe ?les based upon frequency of use and Worked reasonably Well for the time, but required signi?cant frequency of modi?cation and layout ?les in an attempt to operator assistance to make it Work Well. optimiZe ?le layout and reduce times for subsequent defrags. US. Pat. No. 7,124,272 is an example of some of the tech [0004] The minicomputer revolution really got its start With nology implemented in Speedisk. the introduction of UNIX by AT&T. UNIX Was essentially a [0012] One patent applications that shoW some different stripped doWn version of Multics to run on much smaller techniques for defragmenting disks is: US. Pat. No. 5,808, systems. Almost from the ?rst, UNIX provided for dynamic 821 to William Davy titled: “Method for eliminating ?le ?le siZes in a manner roughly analogous to the one utiliZed by fragmentation and reducing average seek times in a magnetic Sperry Univac, of logically chaining ?le fragments together. disk media environment”. And, thus, as a result, some systems experienced fragmented ?les. The solution to this problem Was to reallocate a ?le as [0013] Nevertheless, the disk defragmenting products on the market right noW have numerous Weaknesses, including contiguously as possible, copy the data from the ?le being that they typically concentrate on defragging disks Without defragmented into the neW ?le, and at the end, sWap ?le optimiZing disk performance, When they do try to optimiZe descriptors, so that the ?le descriptors noW addressed the neW performance, they typically utiliZe less optimal paradigms, contents. This alleviated the problem some, but UNIX ?les Were often quite fragmented. and their interfaces are misleading and inef?cient. [0005] The personal computer revolution Was instigated by BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION IBM creating a loW cost computer system that operated under What ultimately became the Microsoft MS-DOC operating [0014] A method and system for reorganiZing a storage system. MS-DOS Was a clone of a Digital Research operating device such as a disk drive or partition thereof represents the US 2009/0113160 A1 Apr. 30, 2009

storage device as a set of concentric circles, With each circle placement of ?les and folders on his hard drive. With the containing blocks of storage With the concentric circles hav present invention the user can place the ?les he Wants the best ing a differing numbers of blocks of storage resulting in performance from onto the faster areas of his hard drive and differing radii of the concentric circles. More frequently used also get all of his unused data right out of the Way and ?les are moved toWards the outer circles With larger radii, and repositioned onto the sloWer areas of his hard drive in order to less frequently used, often archival, ?les are moved to the make Way for the data that he Wants to place in the “hot” inner circles of lesser radius, all under user control. Addition sections of his hard drive Where performance is greatest. ally, the storage device is represented similarly as concentric [0034] The present invention lets the user specify defrag circles of blocks of storage, With the blocks displayed poten routines right doWn to the individual ?le and folder level. No tially containing parts of multiple ?les, and ?les being con other defragger has previously enabled users to do this to this tained in multiple blocks. Users can Zoom in or out, With more extent and With this kind of poWer and ?exibility. or feWer blocks displayed. [0035] The present invention has a High Performance ?le section option so that users can get the best possible perfor BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS mance out the programs they Want the best performance from, [0015] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a General Whether it’s a particular game, program or data ?le. They can Purpose Computer; move these programs and ?les ahead of other ?les and folders [0016] FIG. 2 is a diagram ofan exemplary hard drive, in to the area of their drive that gives you the best performance. accordance With the prior art; [0036] Users choose the ?les that they Want performance [0017] FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary frag from and those that they don’t or let the present invention do mented ?le and a contiguous ?le located on a hard drive; it for youiautomatically based on ?le usage. [0018] FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary frag [0037] The present invention is very poWerful yet very easy mented ?le and a contiguous ?le located on a hard drive; and intuitive to use. Once someone understands the basic [0019] FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating exemplary ideal ?le concepts and issues that sloW their hard drive and principles placement on a hard drive; that result in increased performance, they can use the present [0020] FIG. 6 is a diagram that illustrates disk seeking; invention as a poWerful tool to give their hard drive ?le access [0021] FIG. 7 is a diagram that shoWs a typically hard drive that Will perform signi?cantly faster than What hard drive that has not been optimiZed; manufacturers quote for their hard drive’s performance. [0022] FIG. 8 is a diagram that illustrates the results of [0038] When done rightithese principles of performance optimizing ?le placement on a disk drive utilizing Pareto’s promotion, that the present invention enables users to rule, in accordance With the current implementation of the address, all compound like magic to give them performance present invention; that they have not previously experienced from their hard [0023] FIG. 9 is an exemplary diagram illustrating hard drive. After defragging and optimiZing With the present drive transfer performance; inventionitheir Whole PC Will respond With the speed and [0024] FIG. 10 is an exemplary diagram that illustrates hard sprite as When it Was neW. They Will see the performance drive fatigue; results instantly! [0025] FIG. 11 is an exemplary diagram illustrating hard [0039] If users decide that they do not Want to use all of the disk partitioning; advanced options and simply Want a fast reliable defrag, then [0026] FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating the main graphical they can also use the present invention for that purpose only. interface of the current implementation of the present inven Simply select the AUTO option and they Will be enjoying tion; What is probably the fastest and cleverest defrag engine on the [0027] FIG. 13 is a diagram shoWing Volume Information, market even With its approach to standard defragging Which in accordance With the current implementation of the present uses e?icient “in-place” defragging algorithms for fast, reli invention; able and complete defrags. [0028] FIG. 14 is a diagram that shoWs an Options screen [0040] The present invention preferably utiliZes Last that can be activated from the File Menu via the Tools sub Access time stamps for ?les to determine ?le usage fre menu shoWn in FIG. 12; quency. For this purpose it is suggested that users have Last [0029] FIG. 15 is a diagram shoWing an exemplary ?le File Access time stamping enabled. By default in the current selection page used to select High Performance ?les, in accor WindoWs operating systems, this is already set to enabled. dance With the current implementation of the present inven Some programs and published WindoWs tWeaks suggest that tion; users disable it due to performance issues. In most circum [0030] FIG. 16 is a diagram shoWing an exemplary ?le stances the performance difference is unnoticeable hoWever selection page used to selectArchive ?les, in accordance With to get the performance increases that the present invention the current implementation of the present invention; provides and for the present invention to function properly it [0031] FIG. 17 is a diagram illustrating the defragmenta is suggested that users enable it. tion controls shoWn in FIG. 12 in more detail; and [0041] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a General [0032] FIG. 18 is a diagram illustrating an Options screen Purpose Computer 20. The General Purpose Computer 20 has that is launched When a user clicks on one of the Defrag a Computer Processor 22 (CPU), and Memory 24, connected Method option buttons shoWn in FIG. 17. by a Bus 26. Memory 24 is a relatively high speed machine readable medium and includes Volatile Memories such as DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION DRAM, and SRAM, and Non-Volatile Memories such as, ROM, FLASH, EPROM, EEPROM, and bubble memory. [0033] The present invention comprises revolutionary Also connected to the Bus are Secondary Storage 30, External defrag softWare that not only lets a user defrag, but also Storage 32, output devices such as a monitor 34, input devices considers a more important phenomenon, and that is, the such as a keyboard 36 With a mouse 37, and printers 38. US 2009/0113160 A1 Apr. 30, 2009

Secondary Storage 30 includes machine-readable media such [0045] Currently, under the most recent Microsoft Win as hard disk drives, magnetic drum, and bubble memory. doWs operating systems, a ?le may be 512 bytes in siZe or it External Storage 32 includes machine-readable media such may be many Gigabytes in siZe. as ?oppy disks, removable hard drives, magnetic tape, CD [0046] If users do not run any kind of defragging or ?le ROM, and even other computers, possibly connected via a ordering process, generally speaking, ?les exist on their disk communications line 28. The distinction draWn here betWeen drives in seemingly random order. Files may also become Secondary Storage 30 and External Storage 32 is primarily fragmented throughusage and this is typically a leading cause for convenience in describing the invention. As such, it should of reduced hard drive performance. be appreciated that there is substantial functional overlap [0047] Fragmentation of users’ computer’s hard drive is a betWeen these elements. Computer software such test pro natural phenomenon that occurs When deleted ?les leave grams, operating systems, and user programs can be stored in empty spaces amongst their drive’s data. When the operating a Computer Software Storage Medium, such as memory 24, system needs to Write another ?le back to the hard drive, it Secondary Storage 30, and External Storage 32. Executable generally looks for the ?rst available free space and Writes the versions of computer softWare 33, such as defragmentation data to that free space. If the data to be Written does not ?t in softWare and operating systems can be read from a Non that space it Will ?ll the space With data and then move onto Volatile Storage Medium such as External Storage 32, Sec the next free space and continue to Write the data until the ?le ondary Storage 30, and Non-Volatile Memory and loaded for is completely Writtenithe result is often parts of a ?le scat execution directly into Volatile Memory, executed directly tered in a fragmented (non-contiguous) manner. out of Non-Volatile Memory, or stored on the Secondary [0048] When the operating system requests that frag Storage 30 prior to loading into Volatile Memory for execu mented ?le from the hard drive, the hard drive read-Write tion. heads typically need to move around the drive to collect all the [0042] FIG. 2 is a diagram of an exemplary hard drive, in pieces of that ?le. The result is often vastly reduced perfor accordance With the prior art. A hard drive 40 typically con mance since the hard drive head has to make many move sists of one or more circular platters 46 of magnetic media, ments to collect all the pieces of the ?le rather than pick it all Wherein the magnetic media can be recorded on one or more up in one smooth motion from consecutive clusters. surfaces. A typical hard drive platter 46 typically consists of a [0049] The more fragments a ?le has, the longer it takes to plurality of circular concentric tracks, each of Which contains load that particular ?le. The result is that a user’s hard drive a large number of recordable and readable data bits. A read/ performs far sloWer than it is capable of in the process of Write head 43 is moved back and forth With an arm 42 over the loading that ?le. This is, in a nutshell, the phenomenon of ?le surface of the platters 46, capable of reading and/or Writing fragmentation. one track as the disk spins at a high rate of speed beneath the [0050] File fragmentation is typically only part of the equa head 43. Moving the arm, and thus the heads, changes the tion in the cause of reduced hard drive performance. The track to be read and/or Written in an action termed a “seek”. present invention addresses this and the other, possibly more The area that is sWept during a speci?c period of time is important, part of the equation in reduced hard drive perfor termed a “sector” 44. In the case of multiple surfaces and mance and that is, the placement and ordering of ?les on a platters, the arms 42 and 43 for reading such typically move user’s hard drive. together, forming a cylinder of tracks 48. The data on the [0051] Most defraggers that are currently on the market various tracks of a cylinder are thus typically accessed have mostly ignored this often much more important aspect of together and are often considered a single logical unit. Also, hard drive performanceithe placement of ?les on a hard note that some arms 42 contain separate read/Write heads 43, drive. Loading one ?le that is fragmented is a discreet issue at and some hard drives contain multiple arms and heads, Which the individual ?le level. HoWever, the Way in Which the Win may or may not move together. All such con?gurations are doWs operating system and NTFS ?le system function results Within the scope of the present invention. in an almost constant dialog betWeen the computer and the [0043] A user’s hard drive is typically the only “data han hard drive as hundreds of ?les are accessed during system dling” peripheral in his computer With moving parts. This boot time and during regular operation of the computer. typically makes it the sloWest performing peripheral, espe [0052] What comes into importance here is the Work the cially When compared to the processor 22 and memory 24. As hard drive read-Write heads need to do to read all of these ?les a result, it is often the performance rate limiting device on his that are both fragmented and scattered all around the drive. If computer 20. Most of the time, the processor 22 and memory they are not fragmented they are still scattered all around the 24 have done their Work and are Waiting on the hard drive 40 drive and loading these ?les requires extensive movement of to provide or save data. the hard drive read-Write heads to pick up these ?les from [0044] In the most simplistic of descriptions, a hard drive Wherever they may be on the driveifrom the outer tracks to consists of spinning platters 46 and read/Write heads 43. The the inner tracks. Reading a ?le from the outer tracks and then platters 46 contain data bits that consist of magnetic patterns having to go all the Way to the very inner tracks takes the of data. The platters 46 currently typically spin at a rate amount of time that is actually tWice as sloW as a drive’s rated currently of anyWhere betWeen 4,200 and 15,000 RPM, seek speed. If a hard drive has an average access speed of 13 depending upon drive speci?cations. This rapid rotation of mS, then reading a cluster from the outer and then the inner the platters 46 results in a cushion of air that makes the track typically takes on average about 26 mS. read/Write heads ?oat only a feW micrometers above the sur [0053] FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary frag face of the plattersijust like a hovercraft ?oats a feW inches mented ?le 58 and a contiguous ?le 56 located on a hard drive. above the Water. When a request for a ?le is sent from the main The fragmented ?le 58 consists of a plurality of ?le fragments CPU, the read/Write heads 43 move across the drive to locate logically connected together to form a single ?le. In the the ?le, they then read that ?le and send the data back to the example shoWn, the ?le consists of 11 segments, each num CPU. bered, and shoWn With the lines that logically connect them. US 2009/0113160 A1 Apr. 30, 2009

The contiguous ?le 56 contains all of its data in a single [0059] The present invention achieves all this With the end location. The result is that it Will typically take a single seek result being hard drive performance that is often currently to access the data of the contiguous ?le, but in this case, likely around 300 to 400% that of a drive’s current manufacturer 11 seeks to fully access the data in the fragmented ?le 58. rated performance. Since hard drives and the WindoWs OS [0054] FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary frag already have built in performance enhancing measures, the mented ?le 59 and a contiguous ?le 57 located on a hard drive. performance increases a user Will see from the present inven The fragmented ?le 59 here consists of ten physical blocks, tion Will currently often be anyWhere betWeen 30% and logically connected together by the operating system. The 100%. difference betWeen this FIG. and FIG. 3 is that here, the cause [0060] This disclosure Will noW focus a little more closely of the fragmentation is that the hard drive is nearly full. The on hoW a hard drive Works from the vieWpoint of data access. outer portion of the hard drive is ?led With ?les 55, and the This Will help illustrate the Way that the present invention inner portion is empty 53. This is, of course, illustrative only. signi?cantly improves a drive’s performance. It is signi?cant though that one of the primary reasons for an [0061] Some Important Terms: operating system fragmenting ?les is that the hard drive is full [0062] Seek Time: The amount of time a drive head takes to enough that the operating system cannot easily ?nd a con move to the correct position to access data. Usually measured tiguous region in Which to store a neW ?le. Another reason for in milliseconds (mS) fragmented ?les is that some ?les change siZe through time, [0063] Latency: Also knoW as rotational delay. The amount and some operating systems address ?le groWth by “tacking of time it takes for the desired data to rotate under the disk on” more disk space. heads. Usually the amount of time it takes for the drive to [0055] Another important item to note is the location of the perform a half revolution. Usually measured in milliseconds data on a hard drive. Currently it is a typically true that data (H13) transfer from the outer tracks of a hard drive platter is about [0064] Access Time: The amount of time a drive head takes 180 to 240% that of the inner tracks. This is due to the to access data after the request has been made by the operating phenomenon of Zoned bit recording and angular velocity. system. Usually measured in milliseconds (mS). Other minor Referring back to FIG. 2, note that the area 44 sWept out by an factors taken out of the equation it is very closely approximate arm 42 forms a pie shape 44 over a speci?ed period of time. to: This means that if data is recorded at a constant density around the various tracks and cylinders 48 of a disk, the tracks Access TimeISeek Time+Latency. further out from the center contain more data Within such a pie [0065] So When data is being requested from the drive the shaped area than do the tracks and cylinders closer to the hard drive head moves into position (seek), Waits for the center. data/ sector to move into position under the head (latency) and [0056] A hard drive is currently typically capable of per then accesses the data. The time taken for these 2 steps is the forming approximately four (4) times What manufacturers access time. specify as the average performance for their hard drive. This [0066] Full Stroke Seek: The amount of time it takes for the is part of What the present invention strives to achieve. In drive head to move from the outermost track to the inner mo st order to have a hard drive perform as fast as it is capable of, track. and even faster than the average rated speed, four elements [0067] Track-To-Track Seek (Adjacent Track Seek): The should preferably be considered: amount of time it takes for the drive head to move from one 1. Files should be defragmented in order to minimize drive track to the very next track head movement While reading a ?le. [0068] Data Transfer Rate: The speed at Which data can be 2. Files should be placed as far as possible toWards the outer read from the hard drive. Measured in Megabits per second tracks of your hard drive in order to be accessed from the [0069] Zoned-Bit Recording: A method of optimiZing a fastest part of the hard drive. hard drive (at the factory) by placing more sectors in the outer 3. Files should be placed or consolidated as closely together tracks of a hard drive than on the inner tracks. Standard as possible to minimiZe head movement While loading differ practice for all modern hard drives. ent ?lesialso knoWn as “seek con?nement”; and [0070] Sectors: The smallest individually addressable unit 4. Files that are rarely used should be placed out of the Way so of data stored on a hard drive. In a typical formatted NTFS that the most used ?les are clustered as closely together as hard drive it is usually 512 bytes. possible. [0071] Tracks: Tightly packed concentric circles (like the [0057] FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating exemplary ideal ?le annual rings on inside of a tree) Where sectors are actually laid placement on a hard drive. Disk access time is graded from out. the inside out, from sloW 62, through average 63, to fastest 64. [0072] Rotational Speed: The speed at Which a drive platter Frequently stored data is stored on the fast outer tracks 60, and rotates in revolutions per minute. rarely used data is stored on the sloW inner tracks 61. The [0073] With all these terms noW outlined, let’s look at the outer tracks provide excellent seek con?nement 65. numbers in a currently typical 160 Gb EIDE hard drive: [0058] FIG. 6 is a diagram that illustrates disk seeking. Seek con?nement 66 is the situation Where the disk arm does not typically need to move outside a small Zone in order to Read Seek Time: 8.9 rnS satisfy most disk requests. A full stroke seek 68 is When the Latency 4.2 rnS arm has to move the entire distance, either from the outside to Full Stroke Seek: 21.0 rnS the inside of the disk, or visa versa. This is the Worst case Track-To-Track Seek: 2.0 rnS scenario for any disk access. And an average seek 67 is When Transfer Rate: 750 Mbits/s an arm moves an average distance in order to satisfy a disk request. US 2009/0113160 A1 Apr. 30, 2009

[0074] Hard Drive Performance Explained that, When compared to When it Was brand neW, it feels a [0075] Data Access. When the CPU submits a request for a Whole lot sloWer. Also, as a hard drive gets fuller users often ?le from the hard driveithis is What currently typically hap notice the same phenomenon. pens: [0085] FIG. 10 is an exemplary diagram that illustrates hard 1. A CPU sends a request to the hard drive. drive fatigue. As a hard drive ?lls up 86, neWly created ?les 88 2. The hard drive’s read/Write head (or heads) moves into tend to be more fragmented and spread over numerous tracks position above the track Where the data is. This is the seek and throughout the disk. the amount of time taken is the seek time. [0086] This is due to several factors With the main one being 3. The read/Write head Waits until the data that is requested that With the hard drive ?lling up and ?les being fragmented spins underneath the head. It then reads the data. The time and scattered all over the drive in no particular order, a drive taken for the data to move beneath the head is the latency and is performing more like the “average” quoted performance as is usually the time it takes for the platter to rotate a half revolution. opposed to When the drive Was neW and mostly empty and performing better than quoted. Depending upon Where the 4. Data is accessed and transferred back to the CPU. mostly accessed ?les are located, it could be performing [0076] The time it took for the initial request, the seek and much less than quoted averages. the latency is currently typically approximately equal to the access time. [0087] Please refer to the ideal scenario discussed above. There are typically four main factors that contribute to [0077] Having the numbers above available noW enable reduced hard drive performance and subsequently typically further explanations of data performance to be put into com four main factors that can be addressed to improve hard drive prehendible perspective. performance. These incremental improvements all com [0078] The average Access Time for this hard drive is 8.9+ pound each other so the result is greater than the sum of parts. 42:13.1 mS. The minimum access time is 2.0+4.2:6.2 mS The improvement is not just an improvement to average per and the maximum access time is 21 .0+4.2:25.2 mS. formance, instead it can sometimes be improved by up to 300 [0079] When complete data ?les or parts of a data ?le are to 400% of a drive’s quoted average performance! scattered all around the hard drive, a user Will get a perfor [0088] Most current defraggers only deal With “frag mance that is the average rated access timeiin this case 13.1 mented” ?lesithey quote performance improvements by up mSisome accesses are as little as 6.2 mS but some are as to 100%. But all they are referring to is the performance of great as (or approaching) 25.2 mS. So there is a 406% per accessing those fragmented ?les, Which a user may only formance difference betWeen fastest and sloWest access time. rarely access anyWay. These programs might add only milli [0080] Often, hard drive and operating system intelligence seconds of performance improvement. No consideration is result in a lot of instantaneous track-to-track seeks i.e. With typically taken into placement of ?les and other items that out the latency due to ?le layout patterns and relative location need to be considered to improve the performance of your of data. On top of this, the “seek con?nement” of the data also drive. As a result, a “defragger” program typically only brings promotes vastly increased probabilities of instantaneous, a hard drive and its fragmented ?les back up to average quoted Zero-latency, seeks due to the “compaction” of the data. This performance. increases the probability that the data requested Will already be under the drive read/Write heads. This actually increases [0089] This is one place Where the present invention pro the theoretical 406% ?gure in the above paragraph to a greater vides a signi?cant bene?t to users. The present invention number, hoWever it is not currently accurately quanti?able, brings a hard drive up to performance that sometimes exceeds but can be as high as 1000%. average drive manufacturer quoted performance by around 300 to 400%. Since there are already performance enhancing [0081] In a typical fragmented and non-optimiZed hard systems in hard drive logic and Windows 0/ S, a user may drive a user Will typically only achieve the average rated experience performance increases anyWhere betWeen 30 and performance as average access time With some accesses faster 100%. and some sloWer. [0090] Pareto’s RuleiThe 80/20 rule. Pareto’s rule per [0082] Part of the hard drive performance equation is Data vades our World. 80% of the Wealth is distributed amongst Transfer Rates. Due to a combination of Zoned-Bit Record 20% of the population. 20% of a company’s customers con ing (more densely packed sectors) and angular velocity i.e. tribute to 80% of its revenue. Pareto’s rule also typically the outer tracks of the hard drive have a greater angular applies to PC ?le access. 80% of the time a user only accesses velocityidata transfer at the outer tracks of the drive cur 20% of his ?les. You can typically extrapolate that to 90% of rently is typically 180 to 240% that of the inner tracks. So the time the user only access 10% of his ?les. When a drive is boasting a maximum of 750 Mbits/ second as the maximumithe minimum is about 350 Mbits/ second and [0091] If you apply Pareto’s Rule to 100 Gb of data, gen the average about 550 Megabits per second. Againiif a user erally speaking, 80% of the time a user only access about 20% is operating a full, fragmented and non-optimiZed hard drive, of that data, so the present invention: performance is typically more around the average of 550 1. Places the least accessed data out of the Way of the high Megabits per second. performing areas of a drive and moves it to the sloWest part; [0083] FIG. 9 is an exemplary diagram illustrating hard and drive transfer performance. The outer tracks 81 have the 2. Gets the data that a user accesses the most and place it to fastest 84, the intermediate tracks have an intermediate trans Where it gets the best performance. fer rate 83, and the innermost tracks 80 have the sloWest [0092] FIGS. 7 and 8 together illustrate the application of transfer rates 82. Pareto’s rule to optimiZing the placement of ?les on disk [0084] When it comes to hard drives, entropy is alive and drives. FIG. 7 is a diagram that shoWs a typically hard drive Well. If a user has had a computer for a While, he may notice that has not been optimiZed. Since the ?les are effectively