Defrag opinions

[Huupi]

You are in for an interesting read !

http://donnedwards.openaccess.co.za/2007/04/great-defrag-shootout-part-1.html

[19monty64]

Wow, you got that right. No surprises as to the winners. Good to mention NTREGOPT + PageDefrag....

[yeow]

I have used PD8 in the past, and also tried JKDefrag recently (only for short while). Both added abt 10sec to my startup time compared to PowerDefragmenter. Got the 10sec off again after I defragged with PowerD.

For normal operations like starting apps, opening files etc, I couldn't feel any difference when defragged with PD8 or PowerD.

But PD8's smartplacement thingie took a longer time, esp when I deleted files near the "start" of the partition (then PD8 wants to "shift" every file after that). PowerD is usually very quick in subsequent runs, tho not pretty to look at (I minimize it anyway).

I usually use PowerD in Safe Mode (can't confirm if that really helps), but in Safe Mode I have to minimize the Contig.exe window or else the scrolling text slows things down alotttt. I also use PageDefrag set for every boot.

Of course, YMMV.

[Nick Rhodes]

I stopped reading after the 2nd paragraph.

He compresses his SQL data and log files and wonders why he has problems... most knowledgable SQL Server DBAs know you shouldn't compress a database's data and log files.

The problems he is having is not because of the defraggers, but because he is doing something that causes instability.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191433.aspx
-{ Quote: "SQL Server 2005 data and transaction log files must not be placed on compressed file systems." }-

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179316.aspx
-{ Quote: "Read/write data filegroups and log files cannot be placed on an NTFS compressed file system." }-

And he wonders why defraggers are struggling with his file...

http://www.sqlmag.com/Article/ArticleID/5122/sql_server_5122.html

-{ Quote: "Answers from Microsoft

Can I use a compressed drive or NTFS compression with SQL Server data files?

Storing data files on a compressed drive or file can prevent database recovery. Never store data on drives or in directories with compression enabled. " }-

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/917047 (emphasis mine)

-{ Quote: "Transactional sector rewrite operations

To guarantee the success of the recovery processes, such as rollback and crash recovery, the log records must be correctly stored on stable media before the data page is stored and cannot be rewritten without honoring transactional properties. This requires the subsystem and SQL Server to maintain specific attributes, such as write ordering, sector aligned and sized writes, and other such I/O safety attributes outlined in the previously-mentioned documents. For the tempdb database, the crash recovery is unnecessary because the database is always initialized during SQL Server startup. However, the tempdb database still requires rollback capabilities. Therefore, some attributes of the WAL protocol can be relaxed.

The storage location for the tempdb database must act in strict accordance with established disk drive protocols. In all ways, the device on which the tempdb database is stored must appear and act as a physical disk providing read after write capabilities. Transaction sector rewrite operations may be an additional requirement of specific implementations. For example, SQL Server does not support database modifications by using NTFS file system compression because NTFS compression can rewrite sectors of the log that have already been written and considered hardened. A failure during this type of rewrite can cause the database to be unusable, damaging data that SQL Server already considered secure." }-

His problem is not the defraggers...

[Huupi]

-{ Quote: "I stopped reading after the 2nd paragraph.

He compresses his SQL data and log files and wonders why he has problems... most knowledgable SQL Server DBAs know you shouldn't compress a database's data and log files.

The problems he is having is not because of the defraggers, but because he is doing something that causes instability.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191433.aspx


http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179316.aspx


And he wonders why defraggers are struggling with his file...

http://www.sqlmag.com/Article/ArticleID/5122/sql_server_5122.html



http://support.microsoft.com/kb/917047 (emphasis mine)



His problem is not the defraggers..." }-



I dont know much about server/corporate environment,but i think the conclusions about which is best defrag is no suprise,many people who write lovesongs on JK defrag are reconfirmed by this review.

[Arup]

Long time user of PD here, dumped PD8 for JK Defrag, some of PD's recent updates have been buggy, last one started probing for floppy drives and PD puts the PD service in background, JK Defrag is truly good but it needs a good offline defgragger, one that works in x64 XP as well.

[DonnEdwards]

-{ Quote: "I stopped reading after the 2nd paragraph.

He compresses his SQL data and log files and wonders why he has problems... most knowledgable SQL Server DBAs know you shouldn't compress a database's data and log files." }-

It's a pity you didn't try to find out WHY I made these choices.

Firsly, as a software developer I have always been aware that the machine I work on is often more powerful than the machine used by the end user, and so I try to take this into account when developing software.

Secondly, I only have 60GB on my laptop, so space is limited, and I really don't like to have to allocate 15% of this to some data files I don't always use.

Given these two criteria, I decided to compress the files, knowing full well that this would slow down SQL Server 2000 considerably. The idea is simple: if the program can work under these conditions, it will work even better in a live environment. If it doesn't work on my development machine, then I need to rethink the solution until it does.

I am fully aware that file compression is not good DBA practice, and would never think of doing this to a server or production environment. At least give me credit for that, even if you don't like anything else I said.

The existence of these large compressed files only presents a problem to badly-engineered defrag programs, but it also separates the wheat from the chaff in a field where it is difficult to distinguish between a "good" program and a "bad" one. A good program like JkDefrag can handle large compressed files without too much effort. Even Contig can handle them without a problem if there is enough free space available to defrag the whole file. Why should I pay money for a program that can't?

-{ Quote: "I have used PD8 in the past, and also tried JKDefrag recently (only for short while). Both added abt 10sec to my startup time compared to PowerDefragmenter. Got the 10sec off again after I defragged with PowerD." }-

I have grappled with the problem of determining how to measure the startup time. I have noticed that the hard drive can remain busy for up to 2 minutes after the desktop appears. It's easy to click "start" on a stopwatch, but what event do you use to know when to click "stop"?

Any suggestions would be welcome.

-{ Quote: "JK Defrag is truly good but it needs a good offline defgragger, one that works in x64 XP as well." }-

I have tried the boot-time defrag option in UltraDefrag (http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/), which isn't as good as PD8's boot-time option, but seems to work ok in Windows Vista (PageDefrag doesn't). It's also configurable and has 64-bit versions.

I am busy benchmarking all the packages reviewed, and would appreciate input and comment on the testing program and how to measure the speed of data files. So far I am only testing system and application files, which is only part of the picture.

[lodore]

hello DonnEdwards,
how comes you always seem to give diskeeper such a hard time?
thanks in advance
lodore

[Huupi]

From what Donn said its quite plausible that he has doing it his way and then there more knowledgeable people in there who discusses from their IT job perpective.

[DonnEdwards]

-{ Quote: "hello DonnEdwards,
how comes you always seem to give diskeeper such a hard time?
thanks in advance
lodore" }-

I'm allergic to hype, and DK is IMHO totally overhyped, unless you think that it is OK for a $299 program to refuse to defrag a server drive (http://donnedwards.openaccess.co.za/2006/10/perfectdisk-another-before-and-after.html). My recent tests of DK 2007 show that at best it is only 2.5% faster (http://donnedwards.openaccess.co.za/2007/11/benchmarks-diskeeper-2007-pro-premier.html) than the built-in Windows Disk Defragmenter. It refused (http://donnedwards.openaccess.co.za/2006/07/why-i-uninstalled-diskeeper.html) to defrag my hard drive, so I uninstalled it. Here are more screen shots (http://www.openaccess.co.za/BlackAndWhiteInc/DiskFiller.htm#Drama).

The latest version, DK2008, has numerous bugs, and is only marginally faster than DK2008. I will post the numbers shortly. Yet the upgrade from DK2007 Pro Premier to DK2008 is $59.95, more than a new copy of PerfectDisk or O&O Defrag. It just doesn't make financial sense. I wrote to the PR of Diskeeper to ask what features can justify the $60 price tag, but got no reply.

I have been writing software since 1981, and worked in numerous IT environments, including a large newspaper with hundreds of computers, both PC and Mac. At present I help to maintain a WAN that consists of 25 sites around the country, with both Windows 98 PCs and XP laptops. In understand about system performance, application deployment an ignorant users. I accept that others have a different perspective, and that my opinions are personal. I feel cheated by DK because their product doesn't do what it is supposed to do, and yet I paid good money for it.

I hope that clarifies things a bit more.

[lodore]

so whats your saying is perfectdisk is both cheaper and does a better job of defragging?
diskeeper did refuse to defrag the fat32 drive on my sisters laptop.
i mean why did acer format it as fat32 in the first place for windows xp sp2 i dont know.
i have got fast replys when i have emailed diskeeper in the past.
in your tests which proved to be better perfect disk 8 or 0&0 defrag 10?
lodore

[DonnEdwards]

PD8 costs $39.99
DK2008 Pro costs $49.95
O&O Defrag costs $49.95
JkDefrag is free

Only PD8 has the ability to do a metadata defrag (part of boot defrag)

Of the 4 programs mentioned, DK2008 has the worst defrag ability. I am currently benchmarking O&O Defrag, so I can't comment on speed at this stage, but I plan to benchmark PD8 soon, as well as Vopt, JkDefrag and UltraDefrag. So many programs, so little time!

Acer does its install as FAT32 for reasons known only to them. It was easy enough to convert to NTFS and then tidy it up.

I'm still trying to figure out how to benchmark defragging of data files, and what to measure. Any suggestions will be most welcome.

FWIW, Steve Gibson, the inventor of Spinrite, also uses PD8, as well as Vopt, and Jerry Pournelle swears by Vopt.

[Huupi]

If you already investigating into defraggers then its almost not possible to overlook ULtimate Defrag from DISKTRIX,cause it has an passionate following here on wilders and IMHO the best made defragger ever.Completely user configurable and a well thought genial concept,and best off all,it really makes a difference,performance wise.

[Long View]

FWIW I certainly find this all very interesting. I have been unable to get any benefit from UD so can not go down as a passionate supporter.

@DonnEdwards. You praise PD8 and this I can understand - I use it on all of my machines. You also praise JKDefrag. Do you use both on the same machine ?
Having just run JKDefrag and then run PD8 analysis I find that PD8 now reports
that the different "colors" are all over the place. Confused as to how both can be good but place fragments in such a different way.

All my machines run with either DeepFreeze6 or Returnil - so I get C: the way I want it and then defrag and freeze. will be interesting to see how JKDefrag compares to PD8.

You say that disk still working for 2 mins. I can certainly confirm this. If I boot a program during this window it takes noticeably longer to boot then if I wait. I have minimised the number of programs services loading at startup but can still find no way to boot in less than 55 sec with the extra 2 mins after the desktop is operational

[Nick Rhodes]

Hi, Donn.

Thanks for responding, I shall have a read in depth now I more insight and someone to answer my questions :D - I have seen so many people spreading FUD about software, especially defraggers, so tend to be very skeptical.

I have written quite a few things on the subject of fragmentation on NTFS (and on ntfs file allocation) that might interest you. Have a search on this forum or I can point some threads out to you later.

BTW the sector mapping issue affects SQL server 2005 in read/write mode as well as 2000 (in read/write and read only) for compressed ntfs - and it CAN conflict big time with diskeepers realtime defragging for sure (because the compressed data fragments so rapidly diskeeper cant keep up).

I am pretty sure that DK2007 (cannot comment on DK2008 yet) struggles to defrag a file when there is not enough space to move it entirely to a temporary location and is a weakness.

I know what you mean about testing on a old machine - great for spotting bad (inefficient) code... but in 10 years I've never experienced the level of fragmentation on a live DB or webserver that you have on your dev machine :D !

Cheers, Nick.

PS, I have 10 years professional experience as a developer (web and databases mostly) and admin related systems on the Windows platform (nt4 SQL 7 onwards) and currently one of the developers on a system to share patient records nationally and online (my bit).

[yeow]

-{ Quote: "I have grappled with the problem of determining how to measure the startup time. I have noticed that the hard drive can remain busy for up to 2 minutes after the desktop appears. It's easy to click "start" on a stopwatch, but what event do you use to know when to click "stop"?

Any suggestions would be welcome." }-Ohh, I didn't know abt the 2 minutes. In my examples, I used the simple stopwatch method - Start time when POST screen appears; Stop time when my XP's "Wireless Network Connection" tray icon loads & "flashes" (it's my last tray icon to load).

Just now I dwnloaded & installed Microsoft's Bootvis utility, and let it run a "trace". I don't really understand what it does, or what the plots mean, but:
- The Cpu Usage plot came down from 100% at around 53s, which corresponded to my stopwatch timing.
- But I also do see some activity at 59s & 74s, perhaps that's the 2 minutes window you mentioned?

[markymoo]

Perfect Disk 8 great program and thankfully theres the x64 version. That guy wants to try Raid it get's fragged alot more and faster.

[DonnEdwards]

-{ Quote: "ou praise PD8 and this I can understand - I use it on all of my machines. You also praise JKDefrag. Do you use both on the same machine ?
Having just run JKDefrag and then run PD8 analysis I find that PD8 now reports
that the different "colors" are all over the place. Confused as to how both can be good but place fragments in such a different way." }-

I use PD8's boot defrag about once every month or so, and only run a full defrag when the file organisation gets really bad. For the most part I have JkDefrag's screen saver to tidy up when I'm not busy.

I realise these two programs have different approaches, so I try not to get them to "contradict" each other. I have tried running without PD8 altogether, but I can't. I end up "hauling out the big guns" if the file organisation gets out of hand.

-{ Quote: "Ohh, I didn't know abt the 2 minutes. In my examples, I used the simple stopwatch method - Start time when POST screen appears; Stop time when my XP's "Wireless Network Connection" tray icon loads & "flashes" (it's my last tray icon to load)." }-

That seems perfectly logical, and thanks for the suggestion about Bootvis. It definitely gives me something to work with.

-{ Quote: "BTW the sector mapping issue affects SQL server 2005 in read/write mode as well as 2000 (in read/write and read only) for compressed ntfs - and it CAN conflict big time with diskeepers realtime defragging for sure (because the compressed data fragments so rapidly diskeeper cant keep up)." }-

I agree, and I don't think it's fair to expect the defrag program to keep a compressed file defragmented while it is in use. That's asking WAY too much. When defragmenting the data files I ensured that SQL Server wasn't running, so that the files weren't "locked".

It has been great chatting with you guys. Security conscious people tend to think more about what they are doing. You may have heard my defrag shootout mentioned on the "Security Now" podcast with Steve Gibson. If you haven't listened yet, it's well worth starting at episode 1.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_vCXBX4q7xEo/R0VVxjHs55I/AAAAAAAAAg4/BB3iNOQZF8U/s400/DK2008Chart.gif

Here are the results for DK2008, but you'll need to read the blog post (http://donnedwards.openaccess.co.za/2007/11/benchmarks-diskeeper-2008-pro-premier.html) to see what the lines mean. After reading the enthusiastic messages on the DK web site, I really didn't think that I would end up paying $49.95 for a program that works 3% better than WDD.

[AaLF]

With PD8 the resident Defragger wouldn't using Microsoft's Bootvis utility be a situation of Bootviz tearing down PD8's good work and re-arranging the startup resources on the rim to its liking and then PD8 following after and tearing down Bootvis's good work and re-arranging the Start-up resources on the rim to its liking and then Bootviz following after and tearing down PD8's good work and re-arranging the startup resources on the rim to its liking and then PD8 following after and tearing down Bootvis's good work and re-arranging the Start-up resources on the rim to its liking and then Bootviz following after and tearing down PD8's good work and re-arranging the startup resources on the rim to its liking and then PD8 following after and tearing down Bootvis's good work and re-arranging the Start-up resources on the rim to its liking -more or less?

[yeow]

Don't "optimise" with Bootvis if u dun want it to mess with PD8's work. Just run a "trace".

EDIT. Oh u're referring to XP's built-in optimising?

[DonnEdwards]

How does the "trace" option store the information? If it's writing to the disk as the bootup is happening, will this interfere with the boot time?

Perhaps we are dealing with an example of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle here: i.e. making measurements can change the results. Of course it would change them equally for all apps being tested, but still ...

[Franklin]

Hi DonnEdwards, welcome to the forum and some very interesting banter.

In regards to the layout.ini file within the Prefetch folder.

I know PD uses this file in the defrag routine for optimal boot or at least what is your opinion if it's just a gimmick or actually decreases boot time?

Do any of the other defraggers utilise the layout.ini?

Longtime PD user here and happy with it.:)

[yeow]

-{ Quote: "How does the "trace" option store the information? If it's writing to the disk as the bootup is happening, will this interfere with the boot time?

Perhaps we are dealing with an example of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle here: i.e. making measurements can change the results. Of course it would change them equally for all apps being tested, but still ..." }-Would be very interested if u smart pple find out. I was only using it out of curiousity to check with stopwatch timings. And I'll stick to stopwatch timings, much simpler.:)

[DonnEdwards]

-{ Quote: "In regards to the layout.ini file within the Prefetch folder.

I know PD uses this file in the defrag routine for optimal boot or at least what is your opinion if it's just a gimmick or actually decreases boot time?

Do any of the other defraggers utilise the layout.ini?
" }-

The layout.ini file is a list of files either recently accessed or used in the startup procedure. WinXP maintains this data and uses is to optimise the file placement of these files, if you choose the right options.

O&O Defrag has an option to use layout.ini, and PD has the option to use it as well, or maintain it, or ignore it completely and do its own thing. I am running tests on PD8 at present so I'll be able to tell you in a few days whether it makes any difference or not.

Diskeeper claims to have helped Microsoft develop the layout.ini system (in one of their press releases or documents) and it would appear that it uses the information when it isn't using its own I-FAAST system.

I haven't noticed a pattern yet on whether the layout.ini file helps or hinders the boot time. Either way you're looking at a maximum performance improvement of around 5 seconds with O&O (http://donnedwards.openaccess.co.za/2007/11/benchmarks-o-defrag-professional.html) and Diskeeper (http://donnedwards.openaccess.co.za/2007/11/benchmarks-diskeeper-2008-pro-premier.html), which isn't really a big deal as far as I can tell. I'll see if I can find some more detailed information on how the layout.ini file works.

See http://tweakhound.com/xp/xptweaks/supertweaks11.htm
and http://www.raxco.com/support/windows/kb_details.cfm?kbid=574

[Franklin]

Thanks for the reply and links DonnEdwards and looking forward to your future results.:)

[Nick Rhodes]

Donn,

I have been been reading through bits and bats, some good info there, though I gotta say I've never experienced your issues that you have had (not been in the same situation), so can't disagree with your conclusions.

What I can say is I've seen repeated times different defraggers work great when another's doesn't for different people.

Have you considered running benchmarks and/or fragmentation counts with respect to time, as one thing I would like to see how quickly the drive re-fragments and performance drops between defrag runs as this IMHO is more important than initial after defrag performance as a simple reboot boot starts to undo the good work. Also important is how longer further defrag runs take.

-{ Quote: "

http://bp1.blogger.com/_vCXBX4q7xEo/R0VVxjHs55I/AAAAAAAAAg4/BB3iNOQZF8U/s400/DK2008Chart.gif

Here are the results for DK2008, but you'll need to read the blog post (http://donnedwards.openaccess.co.za/2007/11/benchmarks-diskeeper-2008-pro-premier.html) to see what the lines mean. After reading the enthusiastic messages on the DK web site, I really didn't think that I would end up paying $49.95 for a program that works 3% better than WDD." }-

The results are interesting; they suggests that file placement strategy helps little with general performance. It also supports the fact the drive access is pretty much random (in general usage). What can help is reducing head seek times, which is what I suspect one of the things IFAAST trys to achieve (by grouping recently used (read and written) files together on the fastest part of the drive, but I've never saw any gains when I trialled worth the extra cost.
Also one thing to note is a file placement strategy could conflict with the way the NTFS driver writes data to disc and cause unnecessary re-fragmentation rates and increase in future defrag runs.

IMHO the approach of optimising file position to reduce future fragmentation is important and this is one thing that many Linux file systems do at a driver level when writing data, which is why they are far more fragmentation resistant and do not loose performance with age (which is what the problem with fragmentation is). Diskeeper's multi-pass approach and perfectdisk's Smartplacement both try to achieve this in different ways.

If I had the spare time to sit down and measure re-fragmentation levels and performance levels with respect to time (and subsequent defrag runs), we might be able to draw even better conclusions.

Keep up the good work, Nick.

[Franklin]

In regards to an often seen reg tweak in disabling time stamps.

Could this have an adverse effect on say PD and using the default 60 and 30 days settings for smart placement defrags?
-{ Quote: "System Key: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem]
Value Name: NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate
Data Type: REG_DWORD (DWORD Value)
Value Data: (0 = disable, 1 = enable)" }-

[Huupi]

-{ Quote: "In regards to an often seen reg tweak in disabling time stamps.

Could this have an adverse effect on say PD and using the default 60 and 30 days settings for smart placement defrags?" }-

I don't know with PD but with UD you have to enabled it.But guess with PD is the same.

[Franklin]

-{ Quote: "I don't know with PD but with UD you have to enabled it.But guess with PD is the same." }-
Thanks Huupi, yep I'd take a guess and say no to disabling time stamps as well.:)

[DonnEdwards]

-{ Quote: "Could this have an adverse effect on say PD and using the default 60 and 30 days settings for smart placement defrags?" }-

The test system does not have time stamps disabled, because I used the default WinXP settings as much as possible.

PD8 doesn't use "Last Accessed Time" but rather "Last Modified Time" as far as I can tell.

-{ Quote: "The results are interesting; they suggests that file placement strategy helps little with general performance. It also supports the fact the drive access is pretty much random (in general usage)." }-

I agree. remember that most of the results shown are measured when there is NO fragmentation left. Only the "Basic XP" and "Basic Office" results include fragmented files.

I think my biggest conclusion so far is that the tests don't reflect user experience or usage. To that is going to take a lot more thought and work.

BTW, I am not ignoring UD from DiskTrix. It's on the list.

[Arup]

Donn Edwards, excellent job, its quite daunting to test out all the defraggers out there, in lieu of that you seem to have done a swell job. My own experience tells me that even though JK Defrag does an excellent job, for best boot times, its PD with its excellent offline defrag.

[Nick Rhodes]

Interestingly I have my pagefile in 6 fragments on a work machine that will not defrag with O&O, mst defrag or pagedefrag, going to try diskeeper and perfectdisk tomorrow as not in the office today.

Its a 20 gig drive (vmware virtual drive) with 27% free space, page file is 1.5 gig approx, so should'nt be any issue with it defragging.

[cortez]

I use Windows XP's defrager.

It does a good job (sometimes it takes 2 or 3 times to get the files nice and tight).

I defrag in safe mode and it is really quick!! (a tip from an IT person).

Once I deleted a partition to the left of one XP and added this space to the XP partition which left the file in the middle of the defrag analyzer. It only took 3 times to "move" the partition using the native defrag utility (yes it had "moved" 2.3 gigs of OS completely from it's original position).

I thought this was impressive (no corruption, which even DD10 sometimes does when moving a partition) so I have confidence in it due to this performance.

[EASTER]

I've tried PD before and realized some snappiness after it's defrag but that program is just not been compatible enough for my setup so i soon dropped it for UltimateDefrag by DiskTrix.

Now i do experience performance gains with UD but i also recognize some limitations compared to PD. I feel i threw money down the tubes when i recently picked up Diskeeper. An earlier version was unstable so i dismissed it easily but this latest one showed some promise early on, but i have a real problem with any defragger running in real-time and especially defragging TIF's and such that are to be discarded anyway. I'm sure some setting someplace on it might exclude that folder as i've excluded others but overall Diskeeper is proven a disappointment whereas UltimateDefrag is at least returned the results i expect plus it puts the user in control, and control of your own placements and such is key to satisfaction. Now it would surely be welcome if a defragger could auto-defrag to the user's exact wishes, but unfortunately, IMO, Diskeeper doesn't afford this freedom, UD does in spite of some limitations, none of which i might add are of real significance AFAIK.

So i conclude that UD (at least for me) continues proven, reliable results and passes CONTROL to how i expect file placement as well as features such as RECENCY, VOLATILE, etc. User interaction IMHO will always be paramount to optimum disk performance and extended life of the hard drive so long as it's applied practically and methodically even.

Diskeeper on the other hand i found maintains ongoing continous disk activity in the background and who's to say how far along an automated defragger of this fashion will eventually or soon tax the limits of these sensitive hard drive mechanisms to the point of contributing to early failure. That's my assumption anyway, others might have better insight as regards DK but from my experience with it and others, i view UD as my best safe choice for maintaining and keeping a healthy system with bare limit drive wear.

Please feel free to openly discuss and/or oppose my skepticism toward such an approach, but satisfactory results coupled with the satisfaction of keeping control steers me to stay with this choice of mine when it comes to these Super Defraggers as i like to call them.

Regards EASTER

[Huupi]

-{ Quote: "I've tried PD before and realized some snappiness after it's defrag but that program is just not been compatible enough for my setup so i soon dropped it for UltimateDefrag by DiskTrix.

Now i do experience performance gains with UD but i also recognize some limitations compared to PD. I feel i threw money down the tubes when i recently picked up Diskeeper. An earlier version was unstable so i dismissed it easily but this latest one showed some promise early on, but i have a real problem with any defragger running in real-time and especially defragging TIF's and such that are to be discarded anyway. I'm sure some setting someplace on it might exclude that folder as i've excluded others but overall Diskeeper is proven a disappointment whereas UltimateDefrag is at least returned the results i expect plus it puts the user in control, and control of your own placements and such is key to satisfaction. Now it would surely be welcome if a defragger could auto-defrag to the user's exact wishes, but unfortunately, IMO, Diskeeper doesn't afford this freedom, UD does in spite of some limitations, none of which i might add are of real significance AFAIK.

So i conclude that UD (at least for me) continues proven, reliable results and passes CONTROL to how i expect file placement as well as features such as RECENCY, VOLATILE, etc. User interaction IMHO will always be paramount to optimum disk performance and extended life of the hard drive so long as it's applied practically and methodically even.

Diskeeper on the other hand i found maintains ongoing continous disk activity in the background and who's to say how far along an automated defragger of this fashion will eventually or soon tax the limits of these sensitive hard drive mechanisms to the point of contributing to early failure. That's my assumption anyway, others might have better insight as regards DK but from my experience with it and others, i view UD as my best safe choice for maintaining and keeping a healthy system with bare limit drive wear.

Please feel free to openly discuss and/or oppose my skepticism toward such an approach, but satisfactory results coupled with the satisfaction of keeping control steers me to stay with this choice of mine when it comes to these Super Defraggers as i like to call them.

Regards EASTER" }-

With regard to any flavor of defraggers i think that differences are not that big in terms of layout,performance,at least with the well known Vendors.But what sets UD in my favour is their thorough helpfile [if you want to learn some more about disklayout and any related]and their commitment and dedication to their product.And yes i see a gain in diskperformance after defrag with it,saying that before i used Perfect Disk with is also a topgun.

[Nick Rhodes]

I've actually suffered an issue with diskeeper's realtime defrag and that is not getting enough idle time to defrag the drive fully. It does defrag the odd file but not much.

BTW I agree with Easter on the subject of defragging temp files (and consolidating), it does seem wasted effort, if we could exclude recently modified and/or temp files (as they are most likely to be modified/deleted again) would be great, but then logically there would be little for a realtime defrag. IMHO it does no harm, but is pretty much futile.

Looking at the top 20 most fragmented files on my HDD they are a mixture of log files, a few app temp files, a few browser cache files and my user registry dat file. I last ran a defrag 2 days ago.
This also does support any file placement strategy that puts most recently modifed files closest to block(s) of free space.

[yeow]

Btw do you have windows/programs on 1 partition & data/mail/browsercache on a separate partition? Perhaps if they're not separated, then I can imagine a smartplacement feature can help more.

With mine on separate partitions, I find myself defragging my data partitions very infrequently. My windows/programs partition I'll defrag prior to saving an image, maybe every 2 weeks. In-between I sometimes do a restore (eg after trying out an app) - and it's something like a defrag too? So a basic free defragger like PowerD seems enough for my habits.

[Nick Rhodes]

-{ Quote: "Btw do you have windows/programs on 1 partition & data/mail/browsercache on a separate partition? Perhaps if they're not separated, then I can imagine a smartplacement feature can help more.

With mine on separate partitions, I find myself defragging my data partitions very infrequently. My windows/programs partition I'll defrag prior to saving an image, maybe every 2 weeks. In-between I sometimes do a restore (eg after trying out an app) - and it's something like a defrag too? So a basic free defragger like PowerD seems enough for my habits." }-

I have 2 machine at work one has 2 partitions and the other has 1.
By comparison the machine with 2 partitions, which is only a month old and not ever been defragged (previous list is machine with 1 partition) has a mix mostly system restore files, some printer dlls, and a few temp java files as the most fragmented files (1000 out of 35 000 files fragmented)
D: has a mix of temp files and email log files (total of 1000 out of 5000 files approx) fragmented.

[Long View]

Having played with Exec Software, windowsXp cut down version of exec software, Perfect Disk, O&O and UD I'm not really sure if all the effort is worth it.
The law of diminishing margin returns seems to operate with a vengeance when it comes to defrag. Use any defragmentation program on a system that has gone to seed and a noticeable improvement will be seen but I think that those who see differences in performance between any one of the major programs have very vivid imaginations.

My own solution is to defragment C: and then use a freeze program. At every reboot C: is as good as it needs to be. Trying to squeeze a little more out of the drive is a mugs game. Research to determine how many angles can stand on the head of a pin is quite a different matter.

[Perman]

Hi,

Having Diskeeper pro 2008, O&O Defrag Pro 10 and UD 1.72 on 3 different machines (mine and friend's), I am amazed by each one's unique features: DK and O&O have so-called background defrag powers plus off-line defrag. Whereas UD's offline feature is still a mystery to me, its flexibility and abundance of options could make advanced user a happy camper.

But in the end, what makes me very impressed is the Frag Shield available only in Diskeeper 2008 pro. According to them, this feature is to monitor MFTs and paging files to prevent MFTs from fragmenting and to offer optimal setting for paging files. How does it work ? This feature is apparently a very unique(?), perhaps some gurus can offer some insights ?

Take care.

[yeow]

-{ Quote: "D: has a mix of temp files and email log files (total of 1000 out of 5000 files approx) fragmented." }-
I do defrag my data partition but not frequently/constantly. It might have x fragmented files out of Y... maybe it's just me but I can't really tell its effects, such that it'll make me think of more frequent defrags or smartplacement. Some files like newly created image files, I do prefer to un-fragment them (sometimes by moving them between partitions). But as for temp & log files...

EDIT: Reread my post, it's previous tone was soooo wrong

[DonnEdwards]

-{ Quote: "
But in the end, what makes me very impressed is the Frag Shield available only in Diskeeper 2008 pro. According to them, this feature is to monitor MFTs and paging files to prevent MFTs from fragmenting and to offer optimal setting for paging files. How does it work ? This feature is apparently a very unique(?), perhaps some gurus can offer some insights ?
" }-

Frag Shield doesn't do much at all. If your drive is correctly organised your MFT will probably never fragment. Allow me to explain:

The Master File Table is a table of file names and sectors. Every time you create a file you add a record to this table. Once all the empty records are filled, the MFT grows. Windows (and most defraggers) keeps a section of your drive, (called the MFT reserved space) so that the new part of the MFT can be adjacent to the previous parts. In this way the MFT grows without fragmenting. The only way the MFT can fragment is if files are written in the reserved space, i.e. in the space reserved for the MFT, *and* the MFT needs to grow.

Frag shield tries to do this by making the MFT larger than it is at present. DK can also defrag the MFT at boot time, at least most of the time. Even if it doesn't, if the fragments are close to one another on the disk you probably won't notice any performance change.

What DK can't do is deal correctly with the other metadata files. The MFT is one of a number of such metadata files. PerfectDisk's boot defrag can fix up the other metadata files. I have noticed on a server that the metadata files grow and get fragmented pretty badly. I'm not sure if is connected with the number of users or with Exchange, but it can get out of hand fairly quickly.

Sadly I have learnt to take EVERYTHING that Diskeeper says with a lorry-load of salt. There is so much hype and misleading information that it is scary. Take the following statement as an example:

-{ Quote: "Complete file and free space defragmentation in the most extreme of conditions
Diskeeper 2008 introduces the most powerful defragmentation engine ever developed. Even if your systems only have a percent or two of free space left available or a file in millions of fragments, Diskeeper can restore lost performance and save the applications reliant on those files from major reliability concerns." }- (emphasis mine)

I set up a drive with some of these "extreme" conditions and DK2008 made things worse. I seems that you *either* get file defragmentation *or* free space defragmentation, but not both, and certainly not under extreme conditions.

I filled up a drive with gazillions of fragmented files and only 2% free space, and DK2008 took days of automatic defragmentation and still got nowhere, distributing the free space all over the drive until it couldn't do any more. I have plenty of other examples of how DK breaks its promises, which is why I give them such a hard time.

[Nick Rhodes]

I have been looking for some information on perfectdisks smartplacement strategy and the claims it reduces future fragmentation.
I have had a quick look through the white papers and not seen any figures to back their statement up.
Can anyone point me in the right direction ?

[DonnEdwards]

I'm not sure if any of the defrag companies have published figures about anything; it would certainly help me to work out how they measure stuff.

I'm also not sure how one could measure "future" fragmentation :blink:

The theory behind SmartPlacement is that by putting all the recent files in one place, along with the directories, any new files are likely to land up in close proximity, along with additional fragments of modified files. So even if a recently modified file grows and fragements, the extra fragment is close by, reducing disk seek times. And since the directory listings are close by, the hard drive is confining its seek range to a narrower band.

-{ Quote: "I have had a quick look through the white papers and not seen any figures to back their statement up. Can anyone point me in the right direction ?" }-

I think the best bet would be to post a comment on PerfectDiskBlog.com

[Huupi]

I'm not pressing you, but curious about how do you rank UD in your upcoming review.

[DonnEdwards]

-{ Quote: "I'm not pressing you, but curious about how do you rank UD in your upcoming review." }-

I'm busy running tests. I only started a few minutes ago, because of pressing work needs and a Christmas dinner last night. Give me a day or so. ;)

You can read my product review of UD (http://donnedwards.openaccess.co.za/2007/06/great-defrag-shootout-xiii-disktrix.html) in the meantime.

[Perman]

Hi, Donn:

Thanks very much for your insights.

How is your views about DK's I-FAAST and O&O's automatic defrag ?

It seems to me that they both are very proud of these features.

Do they have a real value in term of performance ?

Hoping these features not slogans from then again.

Thanks, and take care.

[DonnEdwards]

-{ Quote: "
How is your views about DK's I-FAAST and O&O's automatic defrag ?
" }-

I-FAAST costs $50 all by itself. Since DK doesn't do a "good" defrag in the first place, my feeling is that you are throwing good money after bad. When I did the benchmarks it claimed it would give me an "8%" performance improvment, and then said it only managed "3%", but if you look at the numbers the performance got worse. I have read the whitepaper and in theory it seems like a great idea, but the implementation sucks.

The automatic defrag in O&O conflicts with the screen saver, so you have to choose between the two. I think the JkDefrag screen saver works much better, and is worth checking out, even if you run it in -a 2 mode, which does a defrag but no special file placement, so it doesn't contradict any other defrag system.

The engineering on O&O is great, and they do a good job. My basic problem with automatic defrag is that it gets in the way if you're busy, and it could be busy on the file you decide to click on, which can be annoying.

If you like automatic defrag, then O&O is better than any of the other automatic defrags, including DK, simply because it works properly and does a proper job of defragmentation. It's the "set it and forget it" that DK advertises but doesn't deliver.

I prefer scheduled/manual defrag because you get to decide when it should run.

The only reason why I use PD8 and not O&O is the boot time and Metadata defrag in PD8 is brilliant. But I like O&O defrag a lot, and think it is much better value for money than DK, even though it is the 2nd most expensive defrag product on the market.

[Nick Rhodes]

-{ Quote: "I'm not sure if any of the defrag companies have published figures about anything; it would certainly help me to work out how they measure stuff.

I'm also not sure how one could measure "future" fragmentation :blink: " }-

We could defrag, then run a set number of programs/operations to simulate some real use then measure how many new file fragments there are. Then repeat for a different defragger, we could even measure multiple defrag/usage runs.

-{ Quote: "
I think the best bet would be to post a comment on PerfectDiskBlog.com" }-

I am having a look now, cheers.

[appster]

-{ Quote: "...You can read my product review of UD (http://donnedwards.openaccess.co.za/2007/06/great-defrag-shootout-xiii-disktrix.html) in the meantime." }-
Donn, I just read your review of UD v1.52. You might want to upgrade it to the current version (v1.72) as I think they fixed the large file issue that you alluded in your review.

I also have a question about your parting comment in that review...
-{ Quote: "Update: Both UltimateDefrag and UltimateDefrag Lite require an opening in the Windows firewall, which has to be closed manually once the programs are uninstalled" }-
I don't understand what you are saying. Would you please elaborate on that point? ???

[DonnEdwards]

-{ Quote: "Donn, I just read your review of UD v1.52. You might want to upgrade it to the current version (v1.72) as I think they fixed the large file issue that you alluded in your review." }-
I'm testing the new version now.

-{ Quote: "
I also have a question about your parting comment in that review...
>> Both UltimateDefrag and UltimateDefrag Lite require an opening in the Windows firewall, which has to be closed manually once the programs are uninstalled
I don't understand what you are saying. Would you please elaborate on that point? ???" }-

When I installed the programs I was told to open a port on the Windows firewall. When I uninstalled the uninstall program didn't remind me about the open port, so it remained open until I remembered to close it. I think it had something to do with copy protection.

I don't think version 1.72 requires any firewall changes. It hasn't asked for any.

-{ Quote: "We could defrag, then run a set number of programs/operations to simulate some real use then measure how many new file fragments there are. Then repeat for a different defragger, we could even measure multiple defrag/usage runs." }-

This is easier said than done. I'm not sure whether this kind of experiment is repeatable. I'll tell you when I've written my program to create fragmented files. As I said before, the number of new fragments is not necessarily an issue, but the file performance associated with those fragmented files I.e. where the frgaments are placed).

Certainly no defrag vendor has published ANY figures about the performance of their programs. DK claims % figures, but never explain what the % represents. I can claim a 10% performance improvement, but it doesn't mean anything unless I say what it is a percentage of. ???

[Nick Rhodes]

Donn,

Not easy at all, infact when I tried, I used about 50 files and minimal difference between products, need to think bigger scale.
Need to simulate an average days use on a PC. With a mixture of files being modified (simulate log files and documents) and files being deleted and created (simulate temp files and browser caches, the odd attachment from email).
I would think we would need to look at thousands, possible even hundreds of thousands of file operations to get meaninful results. As you say, very hard, especially to make it repeatable.
Improvements could be measured against not defragging at all, using fragments as units.

[Nick Rhodes]

Using Diskeeper 10 and Perfectdisk I ran a test to measure refragmentation levels. Both using 100% default settings.
Hdd is a 20gig virtual drive with 23% free space.

There was minimal difference between diskeeper and perfectdisk as to refragmentation level. I ran the test 3 times for each defragger to confirm and the results were very similar each time.

So what did I do ?

Reverted to previous project version in visual studio (project under version control), and my test text, zip and sql files replaced with originals.
Cleared Browser cache. Close Browser and all running apps.
Clear windows/temp and user profile temp.
Then the drive was scrambled using Raxco's scramble tool http://www.raxco.com/support/kb_detail.cfm?action=options&prod=1&ver=8.0
The drive was then defragged.
Diskeeper left a few fragments so I re-defragged and the remaining file was defragged (using perfectdisk to confirm).

I Counted the number of files and number of fragments (using analysis of both diskeeper and perfectdisk, they reported different file counts, but gave the same number of new files created and also the same fragments)
I then rebooted.

I then did the following, which represents a sample of what I do during the day...

Browsed to Google, Wilders, Ebay and then Gmail.
Added specific text to a Test text file.
Updated a test zip file.
Updated Visual Studio project from source control
Edit SQL file in SQL Manager
Close all running apps in task bar.
Count files/fragments.

This test was repeated using Diskeeper and Perfectdisk 3 times, the number of files and fragments created/modified only varied by 1 at most.

The (averaged) results...

Diskeeper 230, new files were created, 293 fragments created
Perfectdisk 230 new files again, 298 fragments created.
Dont forget that quite a few files were modified as well.

These results are very similar - the difference is insignificant.

I will not draw any conclusions, but thought I would share, just to show how hard is it to measure refragmentation.

One thought I have had is that there is something more significant

To be scientific, the test needs model a week or 2 weeks worth of simulated usage, then we might be able to see any significant differences.

[Coolio10]

Nick can you try with jkdefrag?

[DonnEdwards]

This is intriguing. Please could you measure the read times of the new files using my current version of Prefetch

http://www.openaccess.co.za/BlackAndWhiteInc/PrefetchSetup.exe

You'll need to create the list of files to be tested for file performance by hand, because I doubt if the prefetch.ini file will have those new files in them.

Thanks for the info on the PD utility to create fragments, and the file access timer. I had no idea they existed.

[Nick Rhodes]

Hi Donn.

I will have a go.

FYI, an easy way to list files to a file in command line is to cd to the directory where you want store the file, the run "dir /s /b > yourfile.txt" and the output will be piped to a text file :)

[Nick Rhodes]

OK. The results are in. Again, using DK 10 and PD 8.

I ran a slightly different test this time, including timings.

Again this was based on something that I did today.


Cleaned temp folders.
Rolled back to a previous project in visual studio (under source control).
Restore backup of files in my test folder.
Use Raxco's scamble to fragment my drive.
Defrag.
Reboot.
Edit a php file.
Edit an SQL script.
Get latest (including a replace) of my project in visual studio.
Update a zip file with the project (over 60 mb).
Make a copy of old project backup folder and then make a copy of existing project into one of the folders.

I had to do a test run first, so that I could then get a listing of the files used in this test, so I could then benchmark them.

The results...

Diskeeper.

Before the reboot
79155 files reported by Diskeeper.
90538 file reported by Perfectdisk.
Both report no fragments.

After the reboot and test run.

Diskeeper reports 80834 files and 1086 fragments.
Perfect disk reports
92328 files, 1039 fragments.

2341 files were used in the timings, using Donns tool.

1.00 seconds, average of 3 runs. (Note that I didnt use the first run as always higher, everytime, I assume caching coming into it).

After defragging again (0 fragments reported only single pass needed with DK 10)

The read time dropped to 0.95 seconds, average of 3 run.

Perfectdisk

Perfectdisk reported 91013 files
Diskeeper 79625 files, 0 fragments after the intial defrag with Perfectdisk.

After the reboot and test

Perfectdisk reported 92705 and 1001 fragments.
Diskeeper reported 81270 files and 1025 fragments.

Timings

1.08 seconds, I forgot to put this in my notes that I emailled myself from work , but I am pretty sure the time dropped to 0.97 seconds after defragging with diskeeper.

So it appears that perfectdisk reduced refragmentation by approx 4% compared to diskeeper, but why was the performance drop about 7% greater ?

Well, This screenshot might explain:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2882/pdkc0.png

There was also a chunk of files near the end of the block files which were fragmented (dark red). As you can see for whatever reason a big block of newly fragmented/created files were placed right at the end of the disk.

In diskeeper this did not happen (free space was in about 6 chunks).

Again, im not drawing any conclusions.
But I still feel the number of files used is still too low so I would not put any significance on the data I collected.

[EASTER]

First time i tried PD this summer i realized spectacular results but soon turned to dismay when it began to exhibit signs of deteriorating performance, not the disc but the software itself. I quickly dumped it for Ultimate Defrag and have never looked back. UD seems intent on rapidly building more and more improvements into it in record time, some times weeks between upgrades.
I know i lost cash on Diskeeper though, it proclaims a lot in PR about Invisi-Tasking and other enhancements but affected some performance in other areas and i simply don't trust a defragger running in the background all the time although thats suppose to limit fragmentation and boost percentages of performance. It done nothing of the such for my machine but Ultimate Defrag makes strategic placement "EXACTLY" where i need them to be and puts the user in control, not a software. I enjoy the interaction of setting up the order of the layouts, and then UD carries out those orders to perfection, and the results are unmistakable plus remarkable.

My Opinion

[Long View]

-{ Quote: "First time i tried PD this summer i realized spectacular results but soon turned to dismay when it began to exhibit signs of deteriorating performance, not the disc but the software itself. " }-


Could you explain ? how does the software deteriorate or show signs of deteriorating ?

[Espresso]

-{ Quote: "When I installed the programs I was told to open a port on the Windows firewall. When I uninstalled the uninstall program didn't remind me about the open port, so it remained open until I remembered to close it. I think it had something to do with copy protection.

I don't think version 1.72 requires any firewall changes. It hasn't asked for any." }-

The port doesn't remain "open". If there's no program named UDefrag.exe listening on that port then it will remain closed.

[Huupi]

i know something about ISRService.exe,it also has a port open to communicate,in my case i figure it is port 48288.but for whatever reason they need it,i suppose it does't hurt. By now they dropped all support for these goodies so verifying or whatelse is a deadend,

[Coolio10]

Can anyone try JkDefrag and tell me if they like it or how good it cleaned?

[Aerowinder]

I switched from O&O to JkDefrag just recently. No services, no extra processes. Very light, fairly quick, does a good job.

[Nick Rhodes]

I forgot to mention, you can guess what the before screenshot for perfectdisk.
Here are the before and after screenshots for diskeeper (using perfectdisk analysis).#

After initial diskeeper defrag
http://img123.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dk1ko8.png

After the fragmentation run
http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dk2vi6.png

[Coolio10]

-{ Quote: "I forgot to mention, you can guess what the before screenshot for perfectdisk.
Here are the before and after screenshots for diskeeper (using perfectdisk analysis).#

After initial diskeeper defrag
http://img123.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dk1ko8.png

After the fragmentation run
http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dk2vi6.png" }-
nick please test jkdefrag :D. Wanna see if this neat freebie can whoop commercial defraggers :D.

[Nick Rhodes]

JKDefrag - I will see if I can test it monday (default settings only). Only potential issue is that it does not respect the layout.ini prefetch file of XP.

[Coolio10]

-{ Quote: "JKDefrag - I will see if I can test it monday (default settings only). Only potential issue is that it does not respect the layout.ini prefetch file of XP." }-
There is a discussion about it. Maybe you would like to read it.
http://www.kessels.com/forum/index.php?topic=319.0

[zfactor]

any new info from the new version of disktrix?

[Bunkhouse Buck]

Where is the evidence (other than that provided by the firms selling defraggers) that defragging has any effect on computer/disk speed? I have not found one piece of objective evidence that defragging has any measurable impact on performance.

I own Perfect Disk and Diskeeper and have measured before and after defragging performance- and there was no measure of performance enhancement- none.

[lodore]

just think does any other operating system need defragging?
or is it just that microsoft has a bad inbulti defrager?
if the answer is no then if microsoft made there fileling system bettter than home users and big corporations wouldnt need to waste there £££ or $$$ on expensive defragging software.
lodore

[appster]

-{ Quote: "Where is the evidence (other than that provided by the firms selling defraggers) that defragging has any effect on computer/disk speed? I have not found one piece of objective evidence that defragging has any measurable impact on performance.

I own Perfect Disk and Diskeeper and have measured before and after defragging performance- and there was no measure of performance enhancement- none." }-
The degree of improvement resulting from defragging really depends on how badly your system is fragmented. The last independent study I know of was done with WinNT/2000. But since WinXP uses the same kernal, the conclusions should be applicable. Here is the white paper (http://www.pmialliance.com/white_paper_data/1.pdf).

[Long View]

I agree - people do talk a load of BS about the benefits of defrag programs - especially ultimate defrag - but the reality is that without a defrag program performance would suffer over time. This does not mean that files need to be moved every 5 minutes or rearranged in some ridiculous way. Any basic program will do - even the built in Xp program - and can be run perhaps once a month.

[Carver]

-{ Quote: "I agree - people do talk a load of BS about the benefits of defrag programs - especially ultimate defrag - but the reality is that without a defrag program performance would suffer over time. This does not mean that files need to be moved every 5 minutes or rearranged in some ridiculous way. Any basic program will do - even the built in Xp program - and can be run perhaps once a month." }-
It really depends on how much your computer, your mileage may vary.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "I agree - people do talk a load of BS about the benefits of defrag programs - especially ultimate defrag - but the reality is that without a defrag program performance would suffer over time. This does not mean that files need to be moved every 5 minutes or rearranged in some ridiculous way. Any basic program will do - even the built in Xp program - and can be run perhaps once a month." }-

I have yet to see any evidence other than contentions (assertions) that performance is enhanced. Saying you think it is, does not make it so. Where's the proof?

[Pedro]

Why not comment on the above white paper? ..

[Huupi]

-{ Quote: "I agree - people do talk a load of BS about the benefits of defrag programs - especially ultimate defrag - but the reality is that without a defrag program performance would suffer over time. This does not mean that files need to be moved every 5 minutes or rearranged in some ridiculous way. Any basic program will do - even the built in Xp program - and can be run perhaps once a month." }-

its either BS to have this opinion about UD in case you never used it.

[Long View]

do you not accept the white paper in post#71 as evidence. As I already said people talk a lot of BS about the wonders of defrag programs and how they do fantastic things so I am not a fan of defrag programs. My view ( which requires no evidence ) is that any basic defrag program will do and need not be done very often. Your criticism appears based upon defraging a machine every few days and concluding that there is no performance gain - which is what I would expect. Try running your computer for 2 or 3 years, 8 hours per day without ever defraging and tell me that it won't slow down.

[Long View]

-{ Quote: "its either BS to have this opinion about UD in case you never used it." }-

I have used it and those who claim that it improves performance over and above many other defrag programs are delusional.

[Bubba]

-{ Quote: "Where's the proof?" }-In personal cases and yes somewhat subjective, there is no other proof than watching as Windows Explorer, Interent Explorer, Start menu....etc....is snappier when opening after defragging. In theory, going as far back as Norton's speed Disk of the early 80's, fragmented clusters was easily understandable but I'm not sure about being able to measure it. Personally, I haven't done a defrag in quite awhile but it is about time and when done programs will be snappier when opening.

[Huupi]

-{ Quote: "I have used it and those who claim that it improves performance over and above many other defrag programs are delusional." }-

Let say it different, to have any file contiguous and placing data on the most efficient location is in general the objective of defraggers,some do a better job then others,i use PD and UD on a few systems now for year and a half,and its my experience that UD doa better job,better said i do the job in case of UD by placing most frequently used files at the outer rim of the disk,and yes it appears to me that it makes a difference,but again i have no scientific evidence to support my "" SEEMS "".

[Bunkhouse Buck]

Every comment I have read about the alleged efficacy of a defragger is subjective. Assertions are not facts.

In addition, now we have kind of an A vs. B discussion. I think A & B are both taking us for a ride- where is the proof that as either defrags speed is improved? It does not matter if you run it once a year or once a day- there is nary a fraction of a second of improvement. I have yet to see evidence to the contrary. Millions a year are spent by home users and corporations on defrag software that is useless or worse. That to me should be a big issue.

[Bubba]

-{ Quote: "Assertions are not facts" }-Sure they are :wacko:

You have made your assertions and others have made theirs, based on facts. I saw the Sun rise this morning and that's a fact. If that's not good enough proof for someone then I suggest they are making an argument just to be arguing.

One takes a ten page book and relaxes in his easy chair. That individual can read it faster than if they took that same ten pages, placed in 10 separate rooms and then went about reading it.

[Huupi]

-{ Quote: "Every comment I have read about the alleged efficacy of a defragger is subjective. Assertions are not facts.

In addition, now we have kind of an A vs. B discussion. I think A & B are both taking us for a ride- where is the proof that as either defrags speed is improved? It does not matter if you run it once a year or once a day- there is nary a fraction of a second of improvement. I have yet to see evidence to the contrary. Millions a year are spent by home users and corporations on defrag software that is useless or worse. That to me should be a big issue." }-

Even a child can understand that keeping whatever stuff in neat and good order make live easier,why should it any different with your harddisk.In my case every morning when i wake up i have to search all over my place for shoes,and clotches and other stuff[i have not yet deffragged my house]and precious time flow tru my fingers,so obvious, defrag has some purposes if you understand.But hope Mr. Edwards drop in to give his latest test results.

[DasFox]

Defragging a drive as being suggested here with all the elaborate applications above what Windows gives you is great if you have a need, but beyond the HOME user, this is getting extreme from what I have seen.

For the average HOME user Disk Defragmenter in Windows will do enough of a job to help bring back performance and keep the system running well.

Several years ago I ran and tested a few applications against Windows Disk Defragmenter, and there was no noticeable difference that I could tell.

But I will say as a PC geek, I do love software, and I enjoy piddling, so this article has me interested in playing once again...

In 20 years of using Windows, the Disk Defragmenter that comes in Windows has served me well on HOME boxes, and I do have an eye for performance, so if there is going to be any improvements with these Defrag utilities I will see them.

One thing I can tell you for certain is with my box I'm using right now, whether I'm on a fresh install of XP or have it stuffed up pretty tight with applications, I have never noticed a loss in performance ever on my systems, just by only using Windows Disk Defragmenter.

Windows Disk Defragmenter will keep your drives running as good as they did the day you've bought them, I know, I've been doing it for over a decade.

Actually what is being suggested here that I don't think people realize is that going beyond Windows Disk Defragmenter is going beyond using a system 'STOCK', and stepping into the world of 'Hot Rodding', reaching for higher performance tweaks. So will the stock system serve your needs, or do you need a hot rodded system at all, this is really the question here, and beyond disk defrag there are many other ways of achieving performance.

Now the only thing here is, do any of these other 3rd party applications give a boost, hot rod the system enough for your needs?

As I jump into the Defrag world again, what applications does everyone recommend I try?

From what I see these two come in good regards:

PerfectDisk 2008 Pro
JkDefrag

Also is it worth trying and using these?

Contig
PageDefrag

THANKS

[mrhero]

I use Perfectdisk because I know it plays well with Firstdefense-ISR. Before PD I was used to use O&O and I can say my system is much faster with O&O. Especially O&O's complete/name algorithm decreases boot time.

[MikeNAS]

I'm using JkDefrag. I set my pagefile to a fixed size which is recommended by Jeroen Kessels (JkDefrag Developer). So no need to run PageDefrag.

[Long View]

-{ Quote: "I use Perfectdisk because I know it plays well with Firstdefense-ISR. Before PD I was used to use O&O and I can say my system is much faster with O&O. Especially O&O's complete/name algorithm decreases boot time." }-

A bit OT ?

How do you find Perfectdisk with FD-ISR as regards each snap shot ? My experience has been that it is impossible to have each snapshot defragmented properly. You start by having a primary snapshot and a secondary. You use PD to defragment and then restore to the secondary. Run the PD analysis and the secondary is far from perfect. You defrag the secondary and then restore to the primary. Same issue - the primary is now far from perfect. If defraging doesn't really matter then this is not a problem. If defraging is a good idea then FD-ISR has a problem ?

[Huupi]

But you can exclude whole secondary from defragged in PD GUI !

[tepe2]

-{ Quote: "I'm using JkDefrag. I set my pagefile to a fixed size which is recommended by Jeroen Kessels (JkDefrag Developer). So no need to run PageDefrag." }-
Sorry I cant help you, only ask another question: I have not set my pagefile to a fixed size. Within JKD GUI I have set PageDefrag to run every boot. Is it really needed or I could run once in a while? What is good and what is not so good about setting pagefile to a fixed size?

[DasFox]

So would JKDefrag, O&O and PD pretty much cover the best of the bunch?

THANKS

[Chris_Taylor]

I use both JKDefrag and UltimateDefrag.

[DasFox]

Anyone else, and is there any differences worth getting PD 2008 over PerfectDisk8?

THANKS

[Nick Rhodes]

-{ Quote: "Anyone else, and is there any differences worth getting PD 2008 over PerfectDisk8?

THANKS" }-

Improved scheduling options (the StealthPatrol adds much needed idle mode scheduling), selected file defrag (great for the de fragmentation of one, or a group of fragmented files).

Try out the demo...

[DasFox]

-{ Quote: "Improved scheduling options (the StealthPatrol adds much needed idle mode scheduling), selected file defrag (great for the de fragmentation of one, or a group of fragmented files).

Try out the demo..." }-

Thanks, well it looks like JKDefrag and PD seem to be the most popular, anyone else?

By the way I was playing with my friends lappy yesterday and I ran defrag on Vista, oh my GAWD it's so damm slow, took 2 hours to complete on a fresh install of Vista, what gives with that?

Is that called a good slow defrag or a crappy slow defrag?

[Pedro]

Whatever it's called, it still needs defragging!

[DasFox]

-{ Quote: "Whatever it's called, it still needs defragging!" }-

What are you talking about?

[Dragon1970]

I'm new to this site, and I've read all of the posts about defragging. While reading about the various testing problems, I had the idea that a mirror program could be used to exactly copy one HD to other HD's of the same type. This way, the same situation would be seen against different defrag programs, or different configurations of the same program.

Another thought I had, had to do with how much a HD is fragged vs performance. It occurred to me that sometimes it is WHAT is fragged that's important to a given user than how much other fragmentation is there. Key areas which are defragged may give more perceived increases in performance.

I should add, I'm not a programmer. I just get ideas about this or that and like to throw them out for whatever they are worth.

[Arup]

I ditched my all time favorite since version 4x PD for free UD which does boot time defrag as well and is the only freebie defragger to do so. The reason..............everything opens way faster and loads in a flash, drop Opera, FF, Pidgin, Open Office to system stuff like Media Player etc. I have dual 500GB 16mb cache SATA in RAID. The performance difference with UD was too good for me to ignore anymore and sadly I had to part with my favorite.

[zfactor]

so does the newest ud do boot time defrag yet??

[Arup]

UD has been doing boot time for quite a while. Give it a try.

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "First time i tried PD this summer i realized spectacular results but soon turned to dismay when it began to exhibit signs of deteriorating performance, not the disc but the software itself. I quickly dumped it for Ultimate Defrag and have never looked back. UD seems intent on rapidly building more and more improvements into it in record time, some times weeks between upgrades.
I know i lost cash on Diskeeper though, it proclaims a lot in PR about Invisi-Tasking and other enhancements but affected some performance in other areas and i simply don't trust a defragger running in the background all the time although thats suppose to limit fragmentation and boost percentages of performance. It done nothing of the such for my machine but Ultimate Defrag makes strategic placement "EXACTLY" where i need them to be and puts the user in control, not a software. I enjoy the interaction of setting up the order of the layouts, and then UD carries out those orders to perfection, and the results are unmistakable plus remarkable.

My Opinion" }-

Same reasons I had to dump PD, lately even on a freshly installed system it wouldn't find defragmented system files and even with files added it would tell me no passes needed. Also program access keept getting slower and slower.

[Long View]

In earlier posts I was fairly rude about Ultimate Defrag being far from Ultimate.
It only seems fair then to say that UD 2008 is a completely different and much improved program. No other defrag program that I have used comes close. Most
stuff is simply archived away allowing the program to deal with a fraction of the data - more quickly and more efficiently.

[zfactor]

i just tried it maybe a month or two ago and there was no boot time defrag? so they def have added this feature? and this is disktrix we are talking about right??

[Arup]

http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/

[zfactor]

hmm nice ill have to ry it out.. what is the most comparable method to the smart placement in pd2008??

[Arup]

Compact.......thats closest to aggressive smart placement in PD.

[zfactor]

okay i just reinstalled and i can not find boot time anywhere?? maybe im simply overlooking it?? also i got a instant blue screen after restarting right aftre the install??

[zfactor]

-{ Quote: "http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/" }-

so it this a different program than the ultimate defrag 2008?

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "so it this a different program than the ultimate defrag 2008?" }-


Yes.........

[Huupi]

-{ Quote: "so it this a different program than the ultimate defrag 2008?" }-

Yes, not even close, did several boot defrags with Ultra but it shows everytime 0 files to defrag,just compared it with PD analyse and showed 4 % defragged system files,so what is right ? After boot defrag with PD subsequent analyse show 0 defragged files. Hard to get to a right conclusion about,at the moment i don't trust either.

[Arup]

UD defragmented my new install of Windows during boot time showing around 6% fragmentation. It works and the speed and loading times show its effectiveness.

[zfactor]

ahh i see.. does it run with vista?

[TOMxEU]

-{ Quote: "ahh i see.. does it run with vista?" }-
Not in Vistax64 due an unsigned driver, but it might in Vistax32.

[Arup]

It runs on SP x64 but not on Vista x64 due to the reason given here http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/faq.html

[zfactor]

just tried uninstalling perfectdisk 2008 twice and i get blue screen when rebooting...

[Arup]

I was lucky with my uninstall, try it in safe mode.

[zfactor]

so vista 32 is fine with this?? before i try installing it.. wow i thught we were talking about disktrix this whole time lol..

[zfactor]

wow seems so basic so you guys really like this better than perfect disk??

[zfactor]

-{ Quote: "In earlier posts I was fairly rude about Ultimate Defrag being far from Ultimate.
It only seems fair then to say that UD 2008 is a completely different and much improved program. No other defrag program that I have used comes close. Most
stuff is simply archived away allowing the program to deal with a fraction of the data - more quickly and more efficiently." }-


i believe you are also thinking as i was that this is the disktrix ultimate defrag but its really the program called ultra defrag which is not the same thing

[Dragon1970]

What's the minimum amount of free space necessary for running UltraDefrag?

[RAD]

-{ Quote: "Yes, not even close, did several boot defrags with Ultra but it shows everytime 0 files to defrag,just compared it with PD analyse and showed 4 % defragged system files,so what is right ?" }-

I wonder if UD's "defragment at boot time" is really equivalent to PD's "Offline Defrag of System Files", ....which happens at boot time.

A defragger that only does online defrags ...occurring at boot time, would leave the same system files unreported and un defragged; whereas a program that can do a true "offline defrag of system files" would see and report them, as reported by PD.

I don't know if this is the way it is, I am just speculating, because I know that just a few weeks ago it was repiorted that UD could not do an offline defrag of system files. Yet it clearly has a menu option for "boot time defrag"

It just occurred to me that I am probably confusing 'Ultradefrag" with "Ultimate Defrag...by Disktrix"; which I confuse by thinking "UD" for both.

[Huupi]

-{ Quote: "I

It just occurred to me that I am probably confusing 'Ultradefrag" with "Ultimate Defrag...by Disktrix"; which I confuse by thinking "UD" for both." }-

Confusing thread indeed,for the record Ultimate Defrag from DiskTrix can't do boottime defrag while Ultra Defrag can do,but as to its effectiveness with defragging system files at boot is IMO schrouded in clouds,have to test it something further.

[zfactor]

yeah i dont seem to have much luck with this ultra defrag so far either..

[Arup]

Zfactor,

Exactly what problems are you facing with UD 1.34?

[Arkham]

I am curious about UD's claim of being able to place files towards the 'outer edges of the platter' for faster access, for a few reasons.

(1) Modern HDDs have not just one, but multiple platters (and consequently, r/w heads) . So, how does this UD defragger detect and place files correctly?

(2) What if the drive is partitioned? What defines the 'outer edge' then?

(3) How does the defragger have access at the physical level i.e. control over the physical location of the file on the platter(s). From my understanding, no defragger has such control, rather it's the HDD's own drive controller that decides where to put what after receiving a request from the file system. The physical mapping of the blocks on the platter may or may not correspond to the mapping of the logical blocks; especially when the "drive map" is represented as a single platter.

(4) Since the file system sees a RAID as only a single drive, how exactly does UD decide to put stuff on the 'outer edges', in say a RAID 0 setup?

Or, I may also have misunderstood the whole thing, in which case, I'll gladly be corrected.;D

My thoughts arise from the very informative paper on the Diskeeper website that I found recently.

http://downloads.diskeeper.com/pdf/new-storage-technologies.pdf

And in particular, this quote
"If there is one key piece of data to remember after reading this document, it is that a disk file system is abstracted from the actual underlying hardware and software that make up the storage subsystem. In other words, those same underlying disk systems (software and hardware) have no knowledge of what the file system is doing."

So, if someone can throw some light on the subject and tell me if I am right/wrong....:)

Also, I have been using Diskeeper very happily for many months now, without any problems whatsover. Currently on the 2008 pro edition, and it always does an excellent job on the drives. I've also never found it to interfere with anything; infact, I did check with FRAPS a couple of times, and the Dk service running in the background has absolutely no negative impact on fps in Mass Effect, Oblivion, GRiD etc.

[lodore]

i dont belive the hype. so im gonna try it out.
as they say the proof is in the pudding.
gonna test in virtual machine first.
well i would but it doesnt support windows 2000 pro SP4.