Diskeeper 11 vs PerfectDisk 8?

What are your comments on the difference in performance and overall of these two applications?

dja2k

 

well I would first like to say diskeeper 11 is alot better than diskeeper 10 and i hope I got a free upgrade. since yesterday my pc is alot faster. when i change security setups it will be even faster again.

I haven't tryed perfect disk 8 thou so dont know about that.

i would like to see what other people think thou.

 

I can't speak for those two, but you should put also O&O Defrag into this contest.

 

ive tried PerfectDisk 7, but not version 8. and i also havent tried Diskeeper in a year or two.

 

It sounds like you want to flush out the Raxco fanboys.
Count me in.
Being using PD8 since it came out and works superbly.
Can't really comment on Diskeeper 11 but D10 was fairly good but PD7 and 8 just shaded it IMHO.
In the end I don't think there's too much to choose between either Diskeeper /PD or O&O Defrag.
They're all excellent and I'd stick with one you like best after trialling them all- they'll all serve you well and are head and shoulders above the rest.

 

How about we add, which works better when using software like FD-ISR.

dja2k

 

I use PerfectDisk8, because I have FirstDefense-ISR.
PerfectDisk is the most boring software I ever bought : "open ... wait ........................ close" and I never feel the difference before or after.

 

So does that mean because you use FD-ISR, you use Perfect Disk cause you have to or choose to?

dja2k

 

PerfectDisk excludes the FDISR-folder "C:\$ISR\0\..." automatically. So I don't have to remember it.
In another defragger I have to exclude this folder manually FIRST, before I use it.
It is just a matter of convenience and lazyness.

 

Oh okay! Nevertheless, we got off topic anyway, but excluding the FD-ISR files and folders, which defrag program is actually more reliable and overall does what it says better?

dja2k

 

Best experience i have with O&O (tested the other two years ago) as it has far more different defrag option as the other two discussed here, and its very fast.

 

I'm not qualified to give an answer. I'm just a user that knows that defragmentation is required on a regular base, but how these defraggers work doesn't interest me. There seem to be several defragmentation methods, but again, I don't care.
I consider defragmentation as a necessary evil that needs to be done. I defrag daily that shortens the pain

 

between the two, i like perfectdisk better. its defrags are more thorough.

my choice would actually be O&O for the same reason stated by Tommy. being able to choose how your disk is defragged is great and it does a good job.

 

On the subject of Perfectdisk v Diskeeper

Problem is you can say X defrags better than Y thats a one off defrag, how quickly does refragmentation occur, how often will subsequent defrags run.

What you need to do is monitor fragmentation levels daily/weekly for a few weeks or months. No advantage having a really great defrag it fragmentation returns to similar levels as a not so good defrag

Both are equally good pieces of software, but what you have to choose is whick kinda defrag method suits you best.

Diskeeper works better with regular defraging. It does'nt defrag space perfectly, but is optimised for doing quick runs and slightly improving fragmentation of files and space with every run.

Perfectdisk is better suited to those who only defrag once every month (for example), it does a much better job of getting files and space defragged in one go.. but it does take longer and does seem more obtrusive to resources than DK and is not suited to regular defragging.

I ran both for a month and found the overall levels of fragmentation with regular use stayed the same (in rough terms) for both DK 10 and Perfectdisk 8. I would guess DK11 will be similar as well... especially as we all know at the end of the day fragmentation isnt the great performance killer of the past.

 

I guess I will stay with PerfectDisk 8 since it excludes the folder for FD-ISR and also since it has the smart placement option so we don't have to defrag every day.

dja2k

 

I think it's a wise decision.
1. You don't have to worry about the $ISR-folder of FDISR anymore.
2. You can't use a "set and forget it" defragger, which can defrag at any moment and this is not good for FDISR-activities. This has been tested by myself and caused errors in FDISR. For FDISR you need an on-demand defragger (This was also recommended in the manual of ShadowUser).
3. Even when you ditch FDISR, you still have a good defragger.
4. I doubt that buying another good defragger is worth the money to make a significant difference in defragmentation.

 

Agreed, O&O is just my choice. Never experienced problems with it, and it's very fast. PerfectDisk and Diskeeper are getting quite 'bloated' in my opinion.

 

the new diskeeper is making accessing files faster than version 10.

lodore

 

Diskeeper users: is it easy to exclude files or folders that you don't want moved?

 

Does anyone know is DS 2007 working with FirstDefense-ISR and does it make conflict or modife the MBR. I know that in DS 10 was option to exclude the $ISR but the Hard Disk was still defraged a lot and doesn't gained performance.

 

They both modify the MBR because they use technology at pre-boot. This is why FD-ISR recommends to exclude the $ISR folder because if it wasn't the file would get moved and you wouldn't see it at pre-boot.

This is why I was asking if it's easy to exclude such files/folders.

However, it strikes me that with the new automatic defragging feature I can't see how the two can work easily with each other. I mean if in 'x' snapshot it does its job, but you boot into 'y' snapshot that has DK11 installed, isn't that gonna confuse the hard drive because that will be doing the same thing?

 

IMNSHO, ther two best are Perfect Disk and O & O Defrag.

Some folkes are infatuated by O & O's ability to select amongst defrag methods.
IMNSHO, the modification time is the only criteria that matters, which is what PD uses.

I've heard that Diskkeeper uses access time, which is a very poor choice.
The idea of defragging is to reduce the number of extents RECORDED for a file, so you want to arrange thge files by modification time to minimize subsequent defragging.

One advantage of PD over O & O, at least for those of us in the USA and Canada, who speak English, is that PD has toll free phone support in the USA and I have it to be quite good.

 

Automatic defragging can't be done in combination with FDISR. It causes errors during copy/update for instance.
Running two defraggers in two different snapshots is asking for troubles and unnecessary.

I installed PerfectDisk8 in my off-line snapshot together with Acronis True Image Home and my software for burning CD/DVD's, because all these jobs need a quiet environment far away from security softwares.
All these softwares are not installed in any of my other snapshots.

Everything works faster in my off-line snapshot, even FDISR, because it doesn't contain any internet software, security softwares or firewall and no malwares of any kind, because there is no internet connection.
I use my off-line snapshot as a recovery center, not as a rollback snapshot and I like to keep my external harddisk off-line as well.
If I need 10 snapshots for testing softwares, I always create them via my off-line snapshot.

Some users call that inconvenient, I call this safer, more reassuring and a nice quiet environment for my work without any disturbements.

 

i never thought of it like that.

i want(ed) my files to be sorted by access date to improve performance when reading files, which would help Windows startup and when i play games.

 

Once a file has been defragged, it does not matter how the files are ordered.
When a file is opened for reading, apps just grab the bytes from whatever position in the file is needed.

For most/many apps, access is faster if a file has been defragged, but this is not always the case. Indeed, when we designed ISO 9660, we provided a capability for having non-contiguius pieces of a file as that permits faster reading due to the rate of spin and head movement of drives.

However, on writable media, allocation is done by the file system. An app could specify where the bytes are to be recorded, but then defragging the drive would undo that, so I expect that only very special apps lock the position of the file chunks.

One can think of a file as being written once, but accessed many times, so you want to eliminate fragmentation when writing, based on frequency of writing.