SpockThePain

Defrag Program Suggestions

39 posts in this topic

While I don't think that the mistake has been made here, the version of SpeedDisk in Win9x is completely different than the version of SpeedDisk in WinNT (SDNT).

As far as I can tell, Symantec has made very few changed in SDNT since it originally came out. All of the features that it now sports have been in other disk optimisers for some time - and they seem to them better (go figure).

For general duty, if you don't mind the lack of features, the defragmenter which comes with Windows is perfectly fine. Throw in the free system file defragmenter from Sysinternals, and you're good.

For those who desire a little more, the full version of Diskeeper is fine. I prefer to use PerfectDisk, myself. It is updated often and has done a good job organizing my files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad I stumbled across this forum,

I had the same problem as you, I was using speed disk but when my xp machine was idle it would thrash my hard drive, didn't really know what it was until your post.

Anyway I remember seeing a setting in cacheman to turn off a "defrag when idle" option. Turned it off and haven't been having the thrashing prob since.

Best of all cacheman is a free util (for personal use anyway).

I'm sure other programs will do this as well but you can get cacheman here:

http://www.outertech.com/index.php?_charis...8d4b75fcc355ebd

Go to settings - tweaks - disk - then just uncheck "defragment disk when idle" box.

Hope this helps,

Jay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone like to update this thread ?

O&O Allows you to sort by name. I guess it does it by folder name first like walking the directory tree and files. Good for speeding up full disk backups, file searches and good locality of reference.

Any more opinions ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any more opinions ?

178912[/snapback]

Here's an interesting article, it explains in great detail why all defraggers using Windows API are more likely to hurt performance rather than improve it. A claim that any defragger using API is a scam, wouldn't be too much stretch.

Vadim Rapp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... it explains in great detail why all defraggers using Windows API are more likely to hurt performance rather than improve it. A claim that any defragger using API is a scam, wouldn't be too much stretch.

199404[/snapback]

Not quite. It claims that if you use a Windows API defragger that you need to run it at least once a month.

Here's the exact quote:

"... defragmentators are just harmful at one-time application. If you launched it even one time, you would need to launch it then at least once a month to be saved from new files fragmentation."

His English is a little rough around the edges, but careful reading pays off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... it explains in great detail why all defraggers using Windows API are more likely to hurt performance rather than improve it. A claim that any defragger using API is a scam, wouldn't be too much stretch.

199404[/snapback]

Not quite. It claims that if you use a Windows API defragger that you need to run it at least once a month.

Here's the exact quote:

"... defragmentators are just harmful at one-time application. If you launched it even one time, you would need to launch it then at least once a month to be saved from new files fragmentation."

Yes, but look what's going to happen in practical use, especially on servers.

It's reasonable to assume that the files most frequently written represent the most frequently used application. Exchange store, email messages, database files and such.

Immediately after defragmentation, these files will begin to occupy every <16 clusters extent left. Not in a month, but in a couple of days they will have hundreds, of not thousands, of fragments. The more intensively the file is worked with, the sooner.

Raxco, for instance, has their Perfectdisk for MS Exchange, which goes for about $200 premium compared to the "regular" one. Even putting aside the fact that the "exchange" component does nothing beyond what eseutil.exe does for free, apparently, exchange store, the object of most interest, will get those hundreds or thousands of fragments very, very soon. Full index file will probably get them after one population. If what the article says is true, then a product specially positioned for Exchange, sold for almost half grand, must be non-API.

BTW, in the original Russian variant, this article is more straighforward: it's called "The Facts Diskeeper 'Forgets' to Tell Us", and mentions as necessary not monthly but weekly defrag. The real necessity, of course, depends on the usage, but isn't it anecdotic that the far more expensive server defraggers will provide very high fragmentation of the most important files much sooner - and it will be much higher than with no defragmentation at all.

Vadim Rapp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what axe you've got to grind, pal, but you started out quoting a supposed authority, and now that it's been pointed out that you misquoted, you're claiming that your authority doesn't know what he's talking about. Do we believe your authority, or do we believe you?

What's your point? What's your stake in this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy to have the Windows defragger run as often as you like as a scheduled system task. You don't even need to be logged in to let it go. So what's the big deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting some flaming, are we? ok.

> but you started out quoting a supposed authority, and

> now that it's been pointed out that you misquoted,

I don't see what I misquoted. If you defrag and then turn your box off, you will enjoy 100% defragmented system forever. If you have heavy writing on the server, you will have high fragmentation in hours. It's not about month vs. week, it's about heavy fragmentation of the free space due to API moving by 16 clusters, multiplied by ntfs habit to fill every little gap.

> you're claiming that your authority doesn't

> know what he's talking about.

am I? where?

> Do we believe your authority, or do we believe you?

you are not in the church to believe anything. Do your own research on how ntfs and defrag api work if you want. Or go and believe the ad selling you api-based defragmenter for your server for hundreds of dollars.

> What's your point? What's your stake in this?

The point is very simple: if what the article says is true, then diskeeper, O&O, and perfectdisk are merely misleading their customers, especially with their server products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a defragmenter that can defrag files that windows cannot?? i tried contig but could not defrag pagfile.sys (in use!) perhaps i can turn off virtual memory whilst defraging??? is that a good idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 2TB array. I used Diskeeper ($$$$$ for terabyte support) for awhile until it started taking many hours to defragment and it stopped defragmenting all files. Even repeated defrag runs on an offline array wouldn't defrag all the files (thousands still fragmented).

I changed to Raxco's PerfectDisk and couldn't be more satisfied. The first defrag pass was quicker than Diskeeper and got all the files Diskeeper missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now