Defragment Program

[Andromeda43]

I also tried Acronis Disk Director Suite 10.0 but i don't like it. The program looks a lot like Partition Magic 8.0. And im just looking for a defrag. program not a whole suite.

Im very happy with O&O Defrag.

Thnx anyway

Just a question, out of pure curiosity,,,

Did you buy O&O or did you get the trial software?

I went to their web site to take a look and didn't like the

invasive registration procedure. If they are going to give

you something for free, then it should be free of personal

questions too. Oh well, that's just a personal gripe and

nothing against the software itself. By the way, what is the

retail price of the registered software?

At least once a week, in some forum or another the same old

question comes up about "What is the best Defrag Software"

or some such. It's been hashed and re-hashed to death.

The only answer comes in the form of a question....

"Have you found one that does what you want it to do?"

and "Are your expectations realistic"?

It seems like each person has their own idea of what the

perfect defrag should do. I've seen NO perfect defragger

since the revised Defrag.exe program was released with

Windows ME. That was not a trial and it was FREE.

I get as close to that perfect defrag as I can by taking an

entirely different tack to the problem of file fragmentation.

I do a backup of my C: drive with Norton's Ghost 2003, run

from a DOS boot disk. I follow that with a Ghost Restore.

All the files are re-written to the HD in sequential order as

they were put into the backup Image File. Of course, there

is NO space between files and NO fragmentation.

With my SATA hard drive, that whole process takes just under

12 minutes.

I know that other people like other software than Ghost, and

that's OK. I suspect the same thing could be done with Acronis,

etc. In fact, I did the same thing with Acronis 8 just a few days

ago to see what results I would get and it was similar except that

Acronis took a half hour to complete its backup instead of five min's

for Ghost 2003.

I'm not hawking any software here, just the idea of trying a completely

different process. If you have a backup program like Ghost or Acronis,

try doing a backup followed by a restore, then take a look at the drive

with Windows Defrag Analyzer.

Here's what the Analyzer shows after I've done it "My Way".

That's on a FAT-32 hard drive. Results may vary for an NTFS drive.

In years past, I've tried Diskkeeper and other alternative software.

I found them all "wanting".

This isn't meant as a tutorial or any such....just an alternative.

Happy Computing!

Andromeda43

[Jeremy]

That's no solution at all. Re-imaging your drive every day to put files in any sort of sequential order is severe excess stress put on the harddrive. Re-imaging doesn't even write the files back defragmented, anyway, so that defeats the purpose in itself.

I've been trying to think outside the box on this particular issue. PerfectDisk and Diskeeper seem to be the two most popular defragmenters. They both claim on their websites that they are the industry leader. That's just marketing, obviously. They each have their pros and cons and that's universal, but I won't get philosophical here.

I've found that Diskeeper Blog and PerfectDisk Blog can be very helpful in providing in-depth information that helps users better understand those pros and cons and finally figuring out which defragmenter they should use. Both work in two different ways yet claim prowess. One of them has to be better.

The simplicity of my understanding so far is:

PerfectDisk will take more time and put a heavier workload on the harddrive by using the SmartPlacement method; placing all files together in sequential order from the beginning of the disk spanning outwards. One pass does usually leave 0 file fragments remaining, so it is deemed very efficient. However, one reboot later and you have fragmented files again, anyway! Here's a scenario: Let's say for example if svchost.exe was placing near the beginning of the disk, for quickest access. The user then goes to Windows Updates and that file is overwritten with a newer patched one. Does PD move all files out of the way and squeeze that file where the previously written one does, putting an extraordinary amount of work on the drive for one file, or does it just place it at the end of the line, defeating the purpose of the previous task of placing it near the beginning for quickest access? This is something I should actually ask here, since employees from DK and PD are replying there. It would be wonderful to get clarification as to what happens in this scenario.

Diskeeper, while it doesn't do SmartPlacement, there is I-FAAST 2, which you can learn a lot about by reading Michael's (Project Manager of Diskeeper) blog entry. It does invisible (InvisiTasking) and completely Automated defragmentation in "Real-time", which you can understand thoroughly by reading another blog entry of Michael's. I previously used PD in the past when I truly believed it was superior in its efficiency. However, since DK2007 was released, I cannot be bothered to manually defrag my files. I would rather have DK manage my files in the background at no expense to my overall system performance than to have PD defrag them nicely during one session, let them fragment in 24 hours or two weeks (as users are frequently doing various tasks which result in varying levels of I/O (Read/Writes) then defragment them again.

In the long run, I think Diskeeper is more beneficial to the lifespan/health of the harddrive, the reason well-explained in the second blog entry of Michael's I provided a link for above, or again here.

[Zxian]

Just a note about what Michael says regarding DK2007:

When you first install Diskeeper 2007 it may well chug away at your file systems, even if you recently defragmented with Diskeeper 10.

This did happen on my system, and had me worried at first, but things are back to their quiet self now, and only the occasional defrag takes place, but I've never noticed it get in my way.

[Jeremy]

Probably an effect of I-FAAST2.

[jcarle]

I installed DK2007 on my wife's laptop. It does a beautiful unobstrusive job of keeping her hard drive defragmented and she doesn't even have to do anything.

[jftuga]

I cannot be bothered to manually defrag my files. I would rather have DK manage my files in the background at no expense to my overall system performance than to have PD defrag them nicely during one session, let them fragment in 24 hours or two weeks (as users are frequently doing various tasks which result in varying levels of I/O (Read/Writes) then defragment them again.

PD8 has a feature called 'AutoPilot Schedule' and is similar to Scheduled Tasks. Now, we only run PD8 on our servers which run 24/7 so we just schedule a defrag on the weekends and twice during week nights. I guess this is not practical for desktop systems, however.

-John

[Jeremy]

I guess this is not practical for desktop systems, however.

John, it's not impractical at all. It's just that Diskeeper eliminates the need for scheduling altogether. As Jcarle stated, you need not worry about anything. Besides that, I am still trying to determine which method of defragmentation is best for harddrives. I have asked this on the thread at DriverHeaven and hope Raxco's representative's will do the right thing by explaining.

[jaclaz]

Well, I guess that a real "scientifically" sound comparison test would be needed, user "feeling" may not be a valid parameter

IMHO disk fragmentation tends to be smaller lately, mainly for two reasons, superior NTFS capabilities in handling files:

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/relFrag-c.html

and average single file bigger size.

Thus defragging a hard disk often is not as imperative as it used to be.

However, there are also many freeware/low cost alternatives, I'll list those I know of:

http://www.dirms.com/

(Dirms and buzzsaw, defraggers)

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysintern...ies/Contig.mspx

(single file defragmenter)

http://www.excessive-software.eu.tt/

(GUI for Contig)

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysintern...PageDefrag.mspx

(pagefile defragmenter)

http://www.vcsoftwares.com/SpeeDefrag.html

(another approach to speed up standard defrag)

http://www.auslogics.com/disk-defrag/index.php

(defragger)

http://defragmentor.com/dmlcl/en/home.asp

(CL file defragger)

http://www.flexomizer.com/PermaLink,guid,c...2145cc1957.aspx

(defragger)

http://www.kessels.com/defrag/index.html

(defragger)

http://www.iobit.com/SmartDefrag/index.html

(defragger)

http://free.pages.at/blumetools/toolsen.html

(defragger)

Some other similar or related tools:

http://www.unitypro.com/diskidleoptimizer.htm

(not a defragmenter, but nonetheless useful)

http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/

(Registry defragger)

http://www.registry-clean.net/free-registry-defrag.htm

(Registry defragger)

http://www.download.com/WinASO-RegDefrag/3...&tag=button

(Registry defragger)

(Registry defragger)

Of the "Commercial" ones, I have found very good opinions on the somewhat less known MST one:

http://www.mstsoftware.com/c_mst_defrag_we_mx2.aspx

(but never had an occasion to test it)

jaclaz

[jcarle]

Thus defragging a hard disk often is not as imperative as it used to be.

That is the worst piece of misinformation I have ever heard. With the average computer racking up hundreds of thousands of files, what you're saying is ridiculous. If anything, there is a bigger need for intelligent defragmentation software now then there ever was.

[jimmsta]

PerfectDisk is pretty nice, but it's not free.

Raxco PerfectDisk

Lots of great features and it's certified by Microsoft.

I bought a lifetime license to PerfectDisk.

I have used Diskeeper for years, and though it was doing a good job... However, when I would do cpu-intensive things, it would engage its defrag engine, and start chugging away, even if I was in the middle of doing something. PerfectDisk does not do this. It waits until there's been about 10 minutes of inactive use on the system before attempting to engage its defrag engine.

For a freebie, I use PowerDefragmenter GUI + Sysinternal's Contig, which defrags files individually, then runs the Windows Defrag engine to move contiguous blocks around the drive.

Download: http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Hard-D...ragmenter.shtml

Contig: http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Contig.zip (New link through Microsoft's site)

Thus defragging a hard disk often is not as imperative as it used to be.

That is the worst piece of misinformation I have ever heard. With the average computer racking up hundreds of thousands of files, what you're saying is ridiculous. If anything, there is a bigger need for intelligent defragmentation software now then there ever was.

I keep hearing this crap from other techs around me... I've done tests, and I can honestly say that NTFS still gets fragmented, and this causes the hard drive to seek more in order to complete file operations. I still believe that defragmentation is a requirement for all filesystems. Hell, even ext3 and reiserfs have defrag programs out in the wild. There's bound to always be some sort of fragmentation, and it DOES slow your system down... Especially when you have a bunch of games on your drives...

Edited November 10, 2006 by Zxian

[Jeremy]

I have used Diskeeper for years, and though it was doing a good job... However, when I would do cpu-intensive things, it would engage its defrag engine, and start chugging away, even if I was in the middle of doing something. PerfectDisk does not do this. It waits until there's been about 10 minutes of inactive use on the system before attempting to engage its defrag engine.

DK2007 is revolutionary compared to DK10.

[mindtrick]

Thank you Jeremy, I read your post about DK2007 and gave it a try. It's awesome so far

[jcarle]

I have used Diskeeper for years, and though it was doing a good job... However, when I would do cpu-intensive things, it would engage its defrag engine, and start chugging away, even if I was in the middle of doing something. PerfectDisk does not do this. It waits until there's been about 10 minutes of inactive use on the system before attempting to engage its defrag engine.

DK2007 is revolutionary compared to DK10.

Just to add... yes, that behaviour was annoying with DK10, but that HAS been fixed with InvisiTask in DK2007.

[jaclaz]

Well, English is such a difficult language, as I read (and write) it the sentence:

Thus defragging a hard disk often is not as imperative as it used to be.

is a "comparative sentence", rather than an "opinion sentence", reference:

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1148...CFTOKEN=6184618

An example opinion sentence is "the sound quality of CD player X is poor". An example comparative sentence is "the sound quality of CD player X is not as good as that of CD player Y". Clearly, these two sentences give different information. Their language constructs are quite different too.

The above is a comparation between:

a previous common situation (FAT16 with large cluster size and OS with hundreds of very small files)

and a common current situation (NTFS with 512 byte cluster size and OS with smaller number of files relatively big)

that does not mean that there is no need for defragmentation, nor that having a good (or better)defragmenter is a bad thing, only that there is less need to defragment as often as it was necessary with other OS and filesystems, or to be even more exact that it is less imperative to do it, intended as meaning #4 here:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/63/I0056300.html

And of course this applies to average use of the PC, it is quite obvious that a PC used as Web server has different needs than a gaming station or than an Internet Cafè PC.

jaclaz

[jcarle]

Well, English is such a difficult language, as I read (and write) it the sentence:

Thus defragging a hard disk often is not as imperative as it used to be.

is a "comparative sentence", rather than an "opinion sentence", reference:

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1148...CFTOKEN=6184618

An example opinion sentence is "the sound quality of CD player X is poor". An example comparative sentence is "the sound quality of CD player X is not as good as that of CD player Y". Clearly, these two sentences give different information. Their language constructs are quite different too.

The above is a comparation between:

a previous common situation (FAT16 with large cluster size and OS with hundreds of very small files)

and a common current situation (NTFS with 512 byte cluster size and OS with smaller number of files relatively big)

that does not mean that there is no need for defragmentation, nor that having a good (or better)defragmenter is a bad thing, only that there is less need to defragment as often as it was necessary with other OS and filesystems, or to be even more exact that it is less imperative to do it, intended as meaning #4 here:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/63/I0056300.html

And of course this applies to average use of the PC, it is quite obvious that a PC used as Web server has different needs than a gaming station or than an Internet Cafè PC.

jaclaz

You're still wrong. The shear quantity of files on a modern computer make your argument moot. The need for defragmentation now is bigger then it has ever been despite any improvements brought upon by NTFS.