PerfectDisk 2008 version 9.00.038

hi all

after test some of the latest disk defrag out there.... my vote goes direct for O_O_Defrag_10.0_Build_1634_Professional_Edition

it actually improve my system speed dramaticly .

cheers

 

How dramatic,please give some evidence,timings,stopwatch, otherwise its a shot in the dark for me !!

 

So you like self-delusion?

 

Where is any objective evidence of dramatic speed improvement? You have simply made an assertion with no evidence to support your statement. The burden of proof is on those contending that defraggers increase speed. I have never seen proof of this from anyone other than the defrag vendors.

 

I think it's the snappy performance you don't see and the gradual decline in performance that eventually takes over if you don't defrag, rather than the opposite.

 

I have timings:

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1134217&postcount=57

 

Are you saying according to your work there was some marginal improvement in speed with both?

 

Yes, Some times i delude myself i admit ,that's not nice,but reason to frequent Wilders is to diminish that a little more.

 

You are honest

My research indicates that de-fraggers do not in any way improve disk access, etc. and those making such claims are simply making bogus assertions that have no proof in fact.

 

NO NO [no real evidence here,i admit] that AFTER defrag, system seem snappier to me.It seems quite reasonable because of Windows file handling,dropping data to disk which in many cases is not continguous.

 

Thanks for you input, very instructive.

 

What specific instruction did you derive from it?

 

At first glance, the differences are not blatant...

 

Bunkhouse of course defrag improves performance, in leaps and bounds? No not necessarily, but the improvement in performance seen will depend of course on how bad the drive was fragmented.

On a pretty badly fragmented drive after defragging it will appear snappier.

Microsoft even lists on their XP Maintenance site that defrag improves performance.

This is what they have to say on this:

Defragmentation improves your computer's performance by reorganizing your files.

Granted Microsoft didn't do a big technical write up on this, because it seems geared more towards the HOME user, just letting them know this helps is all.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/maintain/improveperf.mspx

Understanding what this is, is not complicated and the information is all across the web.

Here are some articles I was able to dig up on this:

What is 'defragging', and why should I do it?

http://ask-leo.com/what_is_defragging_and_why_should_i_do_it.html

Disk defragmentation -- how beneficial is it really?

http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.com/general/0,295582,sid68_gci1218435,00.html

Measuring The Impact Of Fragmentation On NT System Performance - Microsoft's Windows NT operating system - Product Support

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BRZ/is_12_19/ai_58926473

Test Confirms Defrag Boosts Performance - Windows NT Server 4.0 performance increased by 56 percent and Windows NT Workstation 4.0 recorded gains of 81 percent - Product Information

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FOX/is_13_4/ai_55349694

NSTL Report Finds Disk Fragmentation Strangles Windows XP System Performance; Post Defrag Test Results Reveal Performance Gains Rivaling Hardware Upgrades

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_May_7/ai_85494187

NSTL Benchmarks Show NTFS Performance Improvements After Defragmentation

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/7016/7016.html

P.S. Bunkhouse, maybe like me what you are thinking is for the average users, etc., are any of the 3rd party applications warranted beyond what Windows Disk Defrag offers? Well personally as a hardcore geek, Windows Disk Defrag is all I've used since the days of Windows95, and my systems have always run fast, and smooth, so anything extra needed is really going to depend on the needs of the users and for most HOME users it's probably going to be overkill...

 

One neat way in case of the system drive is to keep it virtualised most of the time,all I/O in the virt.environment has no real impact on your real partition so your files stay the same.If you do so most of the time you need hardly any defrag anymore.

 

Marginal indeed IMHO.

The time to read ONLY the fragmented files did increase by a small percentage, approx 5%

Those file reads are only a small percentage of entire file reads, (0.02% of the files on drive).

How many files were read in real use ?, my rough maths show that about 100 times more files were read than those fragmented in the same time frame (and ignoring system files, just counting the app files)

That means roughly 0.05% performance loss of all files read due to the operations I did to create the fragmented files (excluding system file access). so the real figure is going to be far less.

But with time and usage that figure will gradually increase.

It would take 20 days to get 1% performance loss on those files ONLY, but what if you do different things, eg I do those operations only twice a week (amongst other stuff, so we need to then reduce that figure by a 1/5th so in 20 days we would only get 0.2% fragmentation or looking at 100 days to get 1% performance loss in my test files only.

Now, how much does file caching reduce the performance loss ? Well I cant remember where I read but a typical cache hit % is 80% (because a few file are regularly read/written, eg your office document will sit in cache rather than be physically written or read to disc)... meaning only 20% of all reads need to come from the disk (during normal desktop usage), being pessimistic lets say 50%, which means that 1% performance loss is actually only a 0.5% performance loss in 100 days, or 200 days to get a 1% performance loss overall.

I will not even try to factor in how random file access (which is the general trend for normal desktop use) performance carries a lot less performance hit in fragmentated conditions (in theory a 100% fragmented drive to read 100% of the files randomly will take the same time as a drive that is fully defragmented).

Even if my figures are wildly inaccurate, it shows it will take a long time before we get any noticeable (to the naked human eye) performance loss from general desktop usage.

But, regular defrag runs I think are useful :

As the disk gets towards full, fragmentation increases as it becomes harder and harder to find sufficient free space (and note windows seems to want free space far in access of the file space).
Windows does not always want to place files where we would think best (I have screen shot to prove), prematurely increase rates of fragmentation in certain cases.
The more fragmentation, files and free space, the longer it will take to run a defrag, it can be far easier to run regularly, less painless defrag runs rather than have to run massive long run (maybe you have a server where you cant schedule the downtime for a big defrag run), which you simply might not have time to run, preventative maintenance, especially on the occasions you do something that creates a lot fragmentation (eg a service pack).

 

Why does the interface remind me of safespace?

The tabs....the big rectangle buttons....hmmmm

 

Another review about PerfectDisk : see here

 

That is version 8.
I do know Donn has a review of 2008 (version 9) in the pipeline.

 

its not a court of law here. ppl do tell acording to there self experence.
i test the above prog and see iverall improve in system load etc , compare to all other like it.

cheers

 

i run many machines at home (2 x media centers, 3 xp pro client machines, 1 x xp pro laptop & 1 x server 2003 std edition)
ive always just set windows built in defragger to run as a batch file after 3am.. and manually defragged the clients manually when required.. never had any disk performance issues, however with the new diskeeper 2008 & perfectdisk released i thought it may be worth a trial for a few days.

before running the new defraggers i used hd tune to measure all hd's performance and noted down.... then for 2 days ran perfectdisk and measured again.
ZERO difference

ran diskeeper2008 for 2 days and measured again... ZERO difference.

none of the systems felt any different, if anything i percieved the systems to feel slightly slower/sluggish with pd2008, although HDtune showed zero difference.

the server 2003 box has 4tb attached, and perfect disk wanted to re-arrange EVERY file in its own way... even after full SMARTPLACENT defrag, it took hours again to re-defrag
diskeeper however once it did defrag,the re-defrag was lightning fast (as i would expect)

after the tests i certainly dont buy into the hype
sysinternals pagedefrag & windows internal defragger have served me well for years (& free) also dont require extra services running (in PD2008's case 2 services)
also confused as to why it takes these companys so many new versions every year (that require paid updates) for something as simple as defragging.
im surepeople just want the pretty/different colours to be honest

 

I think you would need to run a test for a month or 2 to be able to get any meaningful data, not just a few days.

 

Thanks for the info, I will have a glance.

PerfectDisk rules

 

Actually, Perfect Disk slows down my system slightly. As I have argued based on the fact there is no objective evidence that defraggers do anything to enhance a system (burden of proof is on those that claim defraggers speed up a system), they are best avoided unless users like to pay software companies for the fun of it.

 

A review about PerfectDisk 2008 : here