PerfectDisk 12

First news from Raxco about PerfectDisk 12: Check Blog

We've developed a new file system filter...


This is something similiar to Diskeeper's IntelliWrite?

 

Before :-

Monday, January 4, 2010 by Joe Abusamra

and After :

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 by Joe Abusamra

 

LOL, basically they're contradicting themselves
Hahahaha, that's a suicidal move

 

wow not what i wanted.... looks like ill be looking elsewhere now...i dont want anything running real time

 

Puran Defrag come highly recommended here @ Wilders.
only free defrag, as far as i know, that defrags system files at boot time.

 

Puran offers Boot-Time Defrag for All files.
Defraggler offers Boot-Time Defrag only for System files.

 

Does boot-time defrag messes up computer, so that it doesn't boot?

Best regards,

KOR!

P.S. In what situations?

 

Boot-Time defrag of PerfectDisk has never caused any problem here even on severely fragmented NTFS file system. I have no experience of Boot-Time defrag on FAT32, so cannot comment about that.

 

Thanks friend!

In of the threads I was reading about cluster size and defrag on boot-time messing up things. Didn't understand it properly.

All my machines have Windows 7 (NTFS) x64, beside one which has Windows 7 (NTFS) x32.

Best regards,

KOR!

 

It can when the disk is "dirty" (inconsistent state). But usually the defraggers warn you about it and don't allow you to defrag until you run a "chkdsk /f" before defragging.

Panagiotis

 

Thanks Panagiotis for the confirmation.

Best regards,

KOR!

 

Full disclosure on being a Raxco Software employee.
I'm a product manager here so perhaps I can shed some insight.

And keep in mind that PD12 is in beta right now, so I can't say too much...

But OptiWrite does not compare apples to apples with DK's offering and probably has very different origin as well. OptiWrite was born out of a need to fulfill certain needs in the virtualization market, and work on it began years before DK went to market with their solution, just as I imagine their solution was being worked long before they released it. This reflects our pioneering efforts in the virtualization space.

OptiWrite was designed for environments where free space fragmentation is not an issue when combined with some other technologies we've added in PD12 that our PD Server, ESX and Hyper-V customers will see.

That said, it is very effective at preventing fragmentation and does cause a bit of free space fragmentation as does DK's solution. OptiWrite exists in PD12 for consumers because there was broad demand for it. It's optional and you need not use it if you don't like the results it produces but essentially if you like DK's offering you'll be just as happy with OptiWrite if not more so as there are differences. They are not apples to apples, particularly in where they sit in the filter stack and in how they operate.

I believe DK's solution sits in the category of "FSFilter Virtualization".

If you look here you can read descriptions about the existing categories:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff549689(VS.85).aspx

For PD12, the category and description would be:

We do not pretend to know how DK's solution works exactly but we can tell you that due to differences in how they operate, one will supersede the other. In a test where both filters are running in the stack, IntelliWrite will not log any prevention and PD12 will.

This is not so say that PD12 steals DK's lunch or anything like that, it just points out that due to respective locations in the stack and how they operate, one will supersede the other. And we don't know of any impact, whether negative or positive there is for having both running - just that having both enabled should be safe.

Regarding the quoted text above though, yeah there's some marketing speech in there, nothing out of the ordinary. And there are contradictory statements if you don't have full context. For example DK's solution is criticized for being called a "green" technology. You could say the same about OptiWrite if used alone. The thing is though that OptiWrite does save on energy when used in conjunction with some other technologies that we have in place in PD12. And even if you did need to run a follow up optimization with PD12 to clean up free space fragmentation caused by OptiWrite, we have data that shows this is more efficient than the alternative solution.

That said, some of those features are not targeted for consumers so.... I guess we do have a bit of foot in mouth going on here. But this is somewhat unavoidable in that consumers have asked for this type of solution and we are keen on giving people what they want.

For all we know, DK's next major release will feature similar technologies in which case all previous comments are void. Although we do feel we have the better core technology, the reality is we are ever locked in a game of leapfrog with our friends at DK where list of features are concerned.

Well this is definitely not the kind of response we want to hear, especially considering that the use of OptiWrite is completely optional. You can continue to use PerfectDisk as you always have in version 12.

If you've been happy with PerfectDisk in the past I'm sure you will be with PD12 as well - more so I think considering all the new engine work that has gone into it.

 

great to hear it can be turned off. i defrag when i feel the need or have it scheduled. i dont want the "auto defrag" type things running and i know for a fact there are many others who feel the same but PLEASE do not make the program any more bloated. i do not mean this in a bad way but for a defragger it already is large and runs x services (well unless set to manual like i do)

otherwise thanks for the info.

is the beta open or closed right now??

 

Beta is open for Microsoft MVPs, MCTs and for VIP's. We'll be opening up the beta to a larger audience in the coming weeks.

 

Raxco PM,

Thanks for those comments. I was a DK user until a few years ago. My interest is image/restore apps and I found my Ghost incremental backup size would suddenly increase significantly without a good reason. I hadn't made any software changes and DK was set in manual mode. When I observed the DK graphic on a daily basis I found the large incremental backups were preceded by a large chunk of data having been moved (500 MB or more). Defragmentation hadn't occurred as the number of fragmented files hadn't decreased. Changing to Perfect Disk corrected this incremental size issue. Even now in the Ghost forum I see occasional reports of unexpected large incremental image backups when people are using DK in manual mode.

I'm using a different image backup app now and create monthly base images and daily differential images. If I deliberately avoid installing software during the month my differential images just prior to to the next base image are around 40 MB which is excellent. I use Perfect Disk in manual mode just prior to creating each monthly base image so it must place the files in a position that minimizes fragmentation otherwise the differential images would be much larger by the end of the month.

So thumbs up to Perfect Disk in manual mode.

Edit... For anyone not familiar with differential backup images, they reflect sectors in use that have changed since the last base image backup.

 

That's great. This is an excellent example of what we know, that most of our more advanced (core) users want to manually optimize and we are careful not to alienate those users.

And again I can't talk to much about the PD12 beta but current beta users have seen changes that split out the manual functions from the automated ones. This means having defined areas of the product where manual operations can be run without those screens being mixed with automatic or real-time operations or indicators.

This results in cleaner, simpler views of pertinent information. We've even set the GUI to recall the last tab you were on so if you only ever want to live on the manual tab, that's the only tab you need ever see.

There are of course a greater number of casual users out there who call for just the opposite, and for them there is another dedicated area in the product. And for those who like using a mixed configuration, they'll find the most expansive volume by volume flexibility in a PD product ever.

The thing we struggle with the most on the consumer side is determining application defaults. Some users do not want anything running by default at all. Others want the product working right away without having to run through any configuration.

And so when we open up the beta to a wider audience we will once again be looking for direct feedback on defaults.

 

Raxco PM thanks for clearing the rumors about PerfectDisk 12. This is what i like about Raxco, great product with great support. I'm using PerfectDisk for a very long time ago and i'm very happy with it.

 

An interesting blog-post dichotomy presented here…

First off, I appreciate the professional candor of the Raxco PM. Competition is required for progress, benefiting customers and vendors alike. It is both welcome and vital.

To set the record straight, the origin of Diskeeper Corporation's IntelliWrite was specifically for virtualization, storage area networks (SANs), and the block-based copy-on-write technologies popular in those environments. I feel we've made this fairly clear in dozens of articles, white papers, blogs, et al., since its release in November 2009. Raxco is a credible developer and a respectable competitor, so I read all of their blogs and papers. I'm pretty sure they read ours too (their original blog against IntelliWrite would certainly indicate this to be true).

One thing that every vendor of goods does is to write and present really exciting info about their solutions and why they help the customer, and any decent defragmenter is going to help a user with a better computing experience. Are we guilty of aggressive advertising/selling, yup. Sometimes it’s over the top, and we have to catch the exuberant copywriter or sales rep and temper them a bit, but we'll always promote the value and benefits of Diskeeper – as would any other software company that wants to stay in business and keep their developers paid.

Here is a great phrase popularized by Mark Twain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

There are three kinds of lies:
1. lies,
2. damned lies,
3. statistics.

Okay, but the word “lie” is really too strong a statement in the context of product marketing, so please don't infer that I'm claiming that level of egregiousness by any means. If you read the wiki, you understand the purpose is persuasion. I would even go so far as to argue with the wiki definition that it isn't necessarily due to bolster a weak argument, but rather to make an argument that resonates with a customer (when viewed in the sense of “marketing”).

The computer industry is notorious for the use of statistics to the point that a new word was created: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/benchmarketing. It defines the art of testing to get to statistics that are in your favor.

That all leads me to a “line” we do not cross as a company; competitive FUD. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt is a marketing tactic used to dissuade a potential customer from buying from a competitor. In the software/hardware industry it is propagated by presenting compartmentalized statistics. Create a unique limited scope test case that questions the other product's viability. Often it is presented by the vendor as “a service to the customer” to protect them from the hyperbole of the other software developer (e.g. if you are going to use Diskeeper turn off IntelliWrite).

Anyone employed in the software industry for long enough knows full well that a test can be created and carried out to prove any point. You just have to change the scenario. You can create a test case that makes Windows looks like the most secure OS ever, and another that makes it look like Swiss cheese.

There's a lot of data that supports global warming is caused by man, and other data that supports the changes are a natural cycle.

So on that controversial note; there have always been philosophical differences between Diskeeper and PerfectDisk. Our product has always been focused on automated solutions. Are all the bells and whistles automatic, nope. Boot Time defrag is one such example of a fairly manual process, but fortunately improvements in Windows' support for file defragmentation lessens the need. We have room for improvement.

We've pioneered background invisible operation, starting with technologies in years past like Smart Scheduling (2000), I/O Smart (2004), and up to the modern multi-patented InvisiTasking (2006). InvisiTasking and continuous background defrag (i.e. no need to schedule) were criticized by competitors on release and then attempts were made to mimic them a few years later. IntelliWrite is the latest innovation having undergone competitive FUD, and taken in full context, there is a contradiction in the Raxco blog posts. I would argue that IntelliWrite, and Raxco's forthcoming OptiWrite (based on their description), are the most energy friendly ways to solve fragmentation. If used alone, the energy footprint to eliminate fragmentation is as low as it can be. To the extent that free space consolidation is performed or required is where the use of energy re-enters the mix. There's a trade-off there, but it needs to be measured in actual energy. I/O Other Bytes indicates activity, but not directly disk read/write activity, hence any inference that this translates to energy cost is misleading. Energy consumption data needs to be presented to show the actual affect of this statistic. For the record, I/O Other Bytes is related to InvisiTasking and is why Diskeeper runs invisibly on a computer.

And, to answer the question about Diskeeper, yes we have major changes in Diskeeper 2011 that focus on efficiency. To be released next month, btw.

Now, I will give PerfectDisk credit for having great configurability over its features. Again our viewpoint is that we should take care of all that for the user so you get use the computer for what it was meant for, without needing to be an expert on a defragmenter. If the features aren't invisible and aren't getting the job done, then we have to improve or fix it until it does.

We've been developing software with filter drivers for over a decade. Given the sophistication and knowledge it takes to write stable, safe kernel-level code, the process requires far more care and testing than “user-mode” apps. However, “years” seems an overly long period. Given we filed a patent prior to the release of IntelliWrite, I can understand why statements of “years” and “well before” are used here. While we understood the issue IntelliWrite needed to solve, it only took us 6-7 months from requirements stage to shippable code. We have experience in driver development so, perhaps the time frames for someone else to build a driver are legitimate, and there are certainly differing ways to prevent fragmentation that may take longer, but we filed a patent to protect our intellectual property (IP). I'm willing to be proven wrong, but this bit on “years” reads a bit like a way to avoid looking like being an imitator/violating IP. That said, there’s nothing wrong with copying good technology (so long as patents aren't violated of course) and selling it for cheaper.

I'll admit, Diskeeper licenses are pricier in most cases. I think Raxco will acknowledge that Diskeeper is the market share leader (yes, they'll argue who is technology leader). We don't get away with a higher price in the age of Google searches, if we cannot back it up with innovative technology. Is the cheap product technically better? It can be. Price does not dictate measures of quality or performance, but is usually an indicator of such.

So while I agree there are some points where these two products “leapfrog”, some where PerfectDisk was first (virtualization specific edition – by 3 months on Hyper-V and 12 months on ESX), in the most significant areas I would argue that Diskeeper has been, and continues to be, the technology leader. But of course I'm biased.


Michael Materie
Director of Product Management
Diskeeper Corporation

 

It is very nice to see the company's representative visiting this forum more and more, and informing us the technicalities in a civilized way. This, is very beneficial to the members.

Best regards,

KOR!

 

Hi Michael, as always it’s good to have you engaging users with us in public. We should do it more often. I’d like to steer clear of the subject of FUD though, I believe it to be an unsightly subject that both our respective companies could both be accused of. I know we both strive to play nice and sometimes marketing messages can indeed be a bit exuberant.

I’ll provide the users here some insight into our OptiWrite solution. There are many factors that go into when features get implemented, including market conditions / strategy and priorities. Reducing the rate at which fragmentation builds up has been a key feature of PerfectDisk since as far back as I can remember - since before I came on board. It's been a position of the PerfectDisk product long before filters were introduced. The idea of preventing fragmentation is not a new idea. These new filters are simply a new method of doing so.

I do commend DK on its efforts where IntelliWrite is concerned. The marketing efforts put forth have certainly been effective enough - to the point where we have seen plenty of requests to implement our own solution.

We’ve had OptiWrite ready since March 2010. Originally we thought to add it as a service pack to PD11 but... we decided to see what the impact on the market would be before releasing our own solution, and we have had time to come up with something that we are very happy with.

Where automation is concerned, PerfectDisk has always supported it in various forms for many years. The key difference that I see is that Diskeeper only really offers one form of automation, and takes far more control away from the user that we believe professionals want. Our strategy is to provide both automation and granular control. Whether it’s offering automatic, manual or defined schedules for optimization, or custom per volume settings, we feel our solution is very flexible. We also offer single file defragmentation right in our GUI, an interactive drive map, running via screensaver and extensive centralized management capabilities, etc.

We do concede that Diskeeper has the larger piece of the market. How large of a piece is arguable, and we do consider ourselves the technology leaders, having been the first to recognize the importance of free space consolidation while competitors down played its importance – now their messaging is in line with ours. We were the first to introduce multi-terabyte drive support, the first (and still) to be able to defragment all NTFS metadata, the first to support virtualization awareness, the first to support Active Directory integration and etc... Going back and forth with our competitors has resulted in the best technology on the market being available to customers.

And concerning price, we find that our competitors are more than willing to match our pricing when a deal is on the line. I think more often than not, the only people who pay more for a solution are those who don't do their due diligence beforehand. I feel we offer a better, more flexible product for the price and I think anyone can tell you our support is top in class. I myself masquerade as a support rep from time to time. It’s a practice I encourage all product managers to engage in as it gives lots of insight into customer needs. A common comment I hear is that our prices are more fair compared to the competition. I try not to ignore that. I strive to ensure that PerfectDisk provides the features that customers want (both consumer and business), for a fair price and with great support. I feel that so long as we continue to provide those things that we will always be a worthy competitor in any market. I would not want our position to rest on the assumption that if something costs more, that it is likely better - that is the kind of thing every marketer on the planet would love everyone to believe.

I think our competitors are better off standing by the capabilities of their products, rather than pointing to the price as some form of evidence of superior quality. If anything, I think high prices drive more users to less feature rich, lower cost or free alternatives than anything else. At the end of the day it's the solution that gets a quality job done for less that gets the sale.

This has worked in our favor for as long as I can remember. Whenever prices turn a customer away, we are always more than happy to be there, offering greater flexibility, return on investment and quality support.

 

Hi Raxco PM, I agree on the importance of engaging with customers. I do it on a daily basis and even time to time, pop in to forums on occasion to help folks out, as I have here over the years. I know they appreciate it, as it is helps them. As we both know, it helps us even more.

I also agree to avoid competitive FUD. I only commented as it was brought up by other forum posters and why I came to be aware of this thread. It is our company policy, which I personally agree with 100%, that we never disparage other third party products, but sell our solutions based on their strengths and benefits (I appreciate your posts as adhering to this ideal - as do the early responses from other readers). We do not have comparison charts, or even mention, any third party competitors on our website. Our sales reps are provided (for their own edification) internal confidential comparisons on features that highlights our strengths. They are not permitted to send these charts to customers, as this too violates company policy. If you ever see otherwise, let me know (Joe has my email info), and I'll remind them how we do business.

Much of the information I'm providing (last post and below) has a purpose. I believe Raxco to be a largely ethical company interested in servicing customers with the highest ideals, as do we. As Raxco does publically publish comparisons to Diskeeper, I see discrepancies, beyond the usual acceptable marketing embellishments. I've noticed in the past that as I disclose more information about what/how we do, that Raxco has amended their comparisons to properly account for these errors in their comparisons. My hope is that this information will illicit the same corrections I've seen in the past.

There is a degree of disconnect between marketing and development at many software companies, and it exists here at Diskeeper Corp as well. Pre file-filter days, we did do free space consolidation and even have a patent (filed in 1997) that you may not be aware of: “Real-time apparatus and method for minimizing disk fragmentation in a computer system” (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5930828.html). Our marketing group didn’t promote free space consolidation to the degree we technically considered it valuable. Over time we have finally caught up the marketing to the product’s technical ability, and the technical competency has improved over time as well. I’ll give credit to Raxco marketing for better promoting the importance of this. As for terabyte drive support, this was possible in 1990s versions of Diskeeper (not that terabytes really existed at that time). We did not market our ability to handle large volumes until Diskeeper 8.0 (2003) introduced Terabyte Volume Engine (TVE). TVE handled large volumes with millions of files faster and with less RAM requirements than anything on the marketing when first released it. That is when we heavily “marketed” terabyte support, but is not an indicator of when we first could defrag terabytes.

I believe technology leadership is based on game-changing totally-new innovations, not simply doing a similar feature better than a competitor or adopting an industry trend sooner (AD integration). Did Raxco do more thorough free space consolidation 3-5 years ago, probably. I could agree to that. Did they do better defrag on TB volumes 8 years ago (prior to TVE)? I don't know, maybe, but I'd probably argue that, given I've been employed at Diskeeper Corp since 2000.

I will agree on PerfectDisk having solid granular manually-adjustable feature control. Diskeeper is focused on, as I mentioned “Set it and Forget It”; a trademark we’ve had for about as long as that chicken rotisserie cooker; well before my time here. Can you “schedule Diskeeper by volume”? Yes, you simply need to select a volume and then turn off defrag for whatever hours/days you choose (even months/years in advance). Apparently a dirty little secret of ours? Some users want one design, some want the other, and others want some combo of the two. I’d say both solutions are in that middle, just leaning more to one side than the other.

We pioneered screen saver defrag in Diskeeper 7.0 SE (2002-ish), and deprecated it with Diskeeper 2007 (2006) as it was redundant post-InvisiTasking era. We also deprecated Frag Shield as the OS progressed, it's benefits waned, and we released a superior solution with IntelliWrite. We had some upset customers when we did that, but I feel we are responsible for the customer's best interests, and sometimes adopting to progress is challenging when you’ve come accustomed to a particular way of doing things (Office 2007 being a great example). I'd prefer to limit needless options and confusion (as our technology evolves), and take it upon ourselves as experts in our field to provide users the absolute best solution set. Same could be said about talking about moving the MFT 3GB into a partition on post Win2k OS (an OS not even supported by either of our latest releases anymore) ;-).

Again all philosophical differences in the products. As you noted, the best thing is that users can have a choice, based on their preference.

In case I misspoke on the concept of pricing or was misunderstood, I stated “usually” when indicating price as a measure of quality or performance. I believe that to be true. As I also noted, the internet (and especially Search) has leveled the playing field. Forums like this bring many unique voices and opinions, and therefore alternative solutions to others who may not have heard of them before. Thanks to communication channels and competition, a large population today can and do undertake due diligence before they buy a product.

Perhaps my only real disagreement is that people buy on the idea that lowest price that gets the job done. If so, we'd all be driving Daewoos. At the surface, quality like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. A brand new Daewoo looks really pretty sitting on the car lot all shiny and like a giant polished egg on wheels, but I believe people buy on value. I will buy a higher priced item if the benefits, over the life of the product, are greater than with a lower priced item. Quality is hard to valuate without thorough investigation. It takes insightful and intelligent people to understand long term value (quality for price) and overall ROI (return on investment) versus a low upfront price tag. Our volume sales are way up, and increasing daily (year-to-year). Volume sales (for anyone else reading this) are from IT Professionals whose jobs it is to undertake due diligence and purchase the solution, in bulk for the company they work for, that provides the greatest value as measured by ROI. We are delivering on this value proposition, and IMHO, it is due to the technology in our product, and not on clever marketing. If it is based on marketing, then crap, we’re not paying our marketing staff enough!

For my last point (for readers of this thread) I do want to validate Diskeeper "marketing" folks, as I've given them somewhat of a bad rap. When NT4 was released (mid 90's), Microsoft marketing (at that time) promoted the new NTFS file system as "not suffering from fragmentation". Marketing counter-efforts, led by Diskeeper Corp, were undertaken by vendors to educate the public that when they had performance issues, they needed to investigate fragmentation. Pushed by marketing, Diskeeper Corp even built the first ever freeware defragmenter, Diskeeper Lite. Diskeeper Corporation's efforts to educate the public convinced MS to includes OS-level support for defrag in the OS (co-developed by Diskeeper Corp) and, based on our technology leadership, even include a limited defragmenter we wrote into the OS (starting with Win2k). Dare I say we spawned the whole free-defragmenter market? Certainly the joint technical effort we undertook with MS made it all possible.

In summary, we'll always argue who is the technology leader and who offers the best-bang-for-buck. That is a decision for the customer to make, not us. Again I appreciate your ethical perspective and insight and honestly wish you best of luck on your new release. We both have lot's of work left to do on pending releases and those thereafter. So on that note, I bow out of this conversation and return to day-to-day business. For forum folks, I'll have tech support staff answer any product questions you have. Thanks to all the readers and posters for your interest and feedback!

Best,
Michael Materie
Diskeeper Corp
Director of Product Management

 

im curious since its been a while for me using it is there a way to turn off the auto stuff in diskeeper michael? or whoever the tech is you wil have here answering questions? i know it is a perfectdisk thread but due to the comparison of the auto defrag thing and some of use NOT wanting this i was being curious. please let me know then i can directly compare the actual defrag results of both without the auto stuff running all the time. i can turn it off in perfectdisk but was unsure of i could with diskeeper again to turn it FULLY off and use it as on demand only.

thank you


raxco pm.... wow what is up with the new interface?? imo its horrible compared to the old one!!!!!

 

Please remember that you signed an NDA.

The GUI is still being worked on, right now we are focusing on finalizing functionality based on beta feedback. Changes to the GUI are currently under review.

For everyone:

Please, use the internal beta forum at beta.raxco.com as much as possible. Remember that you signed an NDA and the best way to ensure you don't break it is to use the beta site for all questions and feedback.

 

will do ill post everything there. i did not think simply mentioning what i did would break nda. i simply made a comment as to it being a mess nothing more. one comment removed just in case also.. sorry i got over zelous i guess being excited to test it.. lol

 

No problem!

I just wanted to make sure things didn't snow ball.

FYI, if you could post on the beta forum, we really would like to know what you dislike about the GUI - and please don't be afraid to be completely honest. We are asking everyone to try to express criticism in as much detail as possible.

We appreciate people being vocal and passionate about our products. So if you feel we could benefit from a good dissection of what you dislike about the GUI please do so on the beta user forums.

We are considering various changes and would like as much feedback as possible before we start committing any. We have had various polls that have run and closed thus far and will have more before long.