UltimateDefrag - is this the best defragger ever?

Yes, it certainly is scary. Before I do **anything** with this product, other than merely start the program and close it, I **always** do a full image with SPD. In fact, I do **two** full images; one on my secondary internal HDD and one on an external HDD.

Funny........I never felt the need to image before defragging when I was using DK or PD.

 

i guess or is a bug or it's the layout.ini(that should be purged) has a list of files deleted but still inside the layout.ini or how ud interpret the more used data

 

It wrecked my RAID and Im back thanks to Acronis.

 

but xp manage the reserved mft zone automatically or the 12.5% or 25% or 37,5% or 50% of disk space

the default is 12.5%

well in ultimatedefrag you can set manually reserved mft zone


my question is

how can ud2008 prevail, predominate over the XP ?
i mean you set for example 200mb of reserved zone with ud2008
but xp manage this zone automatically ,xp should resize this zone to the default value or 25% if you tweak the registry

no registry value = 12.5%

now how can ud2008 force xp to use not 1gb but 200mb of reserved zone and keep 200mb

hope you understood what i mean

thanks

 

I was concerned about this also, but it simply hasn't been a problem.

I changed the size to one-half the native Windows XP size several weeks ago. After numerous reboots it has not reverted.

Hope this helps!

 

do you mean that you set up a different size for example 100mb and after numerous reboots it's still 100mb??

how can ud2008 to force xp to use only 100mb?

what does it change or tweak ? about the registry i'm sure it doesn't use the registry to keep 100mb


ps the disktricks support is null, insignificant

 

I currently have $mft set at 1 gb but have no difficulty in changing it 100 mb.
My questions is why would I bother ? Is there supposed to be some benefit in a smaller mft ?

 

I simply decided to test the UD Boot Time functions - after backing up my OS Partition.

I did two operations prior to booting:
- Reduced the MFT size from 1GB to 500MB.
- Centered the MFT in the contiguous area (as suggested by UT).

The 'slider' is not really a precision device - the operation resulted in:
- MFT size of 470MB.
- MFT and page file centered in the 'high performance' contiguous ring.

Those settings remain after many reboots.

System runs sweet and stable.

I have no idea what the absolute ultimately superior size of the MFT should be.

I can only report that every feature and function of UD appears to work on my PC.

Hope this helps!

 

i think xp magane it and optimaze the size

what i can't unsterstand is how ud block the size

 

Of course, you do the defrag in Safe Mode? Of course.

Reassure me, please ...

 

today ud boot did a mess on my C:

lots of errors , at the end i installed perfectdisk boot defrag and it restored my mft (by the way pd puts the mft in a different order compared to ud200

 

For normal defrags, why should safe mode be a requirement? How many would buy a defrag app that required safe mode operation? I certainly would not.

For boot-time defrag, you can probably guess that it's performed at boot-time.

Perhaps I don't grasp the point of your post?

 

i found how ud2008 is able to set and lock the space of the reserved zone

it puts between $mft and $logfile ,both immovable (except a bood defrag)

but i guess it's not a good deal because xp should manage it automatically

 

Well, if that's true, then UD's boot time defrag is most definitely not working properly for me. I have been able to change the placement of the reserved zone on one of my machines but $LogFile (as well as other metadata files) are nowhere near $MFT. In fact, a couple of them are smack dab in the middle of the disk with absolutely nothing but free space for miles around.

Anyway, at least I've learned a few things that I would not have learned without having used this malfunctioning s/w. For one, the file and reserved zone are NOT the same (e.g., when someone says their MFT is 500MB or 1GB, they really mean that's the size of their **reserved zone**, not the actual file. Further, I've learned that there is no s/w that has the ability to shrink the size of the MFT file itself; the reserved zone can be decreased in size but not the size of the $MFT; only way to do that is via a fresh install and the only thing one can do to increase performance is to make sure that file is not fragmented.

Also learned that a fresh install will result in a small $MFT file which will continue to grow in size as s/w is installed, directories added, etc. *and* that this file is placed right at the beginning of the disk initially. Kind of counter-intuitive, to me at least, why some feel the optimal placement would be anywhere other than it is immediately after a fresh install.

 

the oder , i mean the mft ud2008 should put in this order , the $mft+reserved zone should be linked to %logfile

i recommend to try the default setting

 

mantra, I'm not following you.

You wrote: "ud2008 should put in this order , the $mft+reserved zone should be linked to %logfile".

Okay, so the graphic below is what the relevant section of my drive looks like in UD. The $LogFile is in one of the two dark grey clusters and the $MFT is on the outer edge immediately to the right of the yellow blocks (which represent the reserved zone).

 

the $logfile should be linked immediately after the $mft+reserved zone

a continuous files first $mft+reserved zone->$logfile and so on

in your screeshot the $logfile should not be there

maybe you move down the $logfile , you could click default and perform a bootdisk

I perfomermed 5 boot defrag on 5 different pc , the $log is alway linked to the $mtf

 

Yet it is! I don't recall how it got there, either. The boot time module didn't (and still doesn't) appear to be working for me so I can't figure out how it would have been moved to where it is currently. All I know is that's a new development.

 

Just tried doing that. I did a "Reset defaults" and then checked the box mext to "Run during next boot". I grabbed a screen shot of the relevant section and have attached that below. As you can see, not much has changed.

Now, despite the fact that the position does not appear to have changed at all and the $LogFile is exactly where it was before the boot time defrag, UD is now showing that the placement has changed. So, no **real** change but UD is reporting that the placement *has* changed -- not good.

 

do you have only ud2008 installed ?
or other defrag like perfect disk

 

Yes, only UD2008 installed. I have a license for PD2008 but it is not currently installed.

 

is out a new version ultimate defrag express http://www.disktrix.com/defragexpress_features.htm

 

Brilliant developer,only he has to hire some good marketing/ aftersales people (and money offcourse) to get to the top of the defrag business !

UD is one of a kind and stand apart from the crowd in his unique abillities,it deserves a place to be used by most all computer users worldwide.

It would be a shame because of not proper management this utility could fall into oblivion.

 

Well, I certainly can't agree with that comment. After all, several bugs in the software have been reported and have gone unresolved......for months.

A "brilliant developer" would have provided some sort of fix by this time or, at least, kept customers apprised of progress in that regard. Failing that, anyone requesting a refund as a result of a serious, unresolved bug would have received a prompt refund upon request.

 

Hi again, I'm the developer of UD

Huupi - thank you for compliment and I'll do my best to justify it.

prius04 - you are correct and I have no excuse for it, except that I'm not responsible for management issues (including refunds), and that the boot time defragmentation issues are not in my competence, as it's developed by a third party company.

The rest of the issues are in progress in version 2009 of UltimateDefrag, or already have been solved.

I welcome any further comments or questions.