Defrag FD-ISR Snapshots

Discussion in 'FirstDefense-ISR Forum' started by EASTER.2010, Apr 23, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. EASTER.2010

    EASTER.2010 Guest

    I tried to go back in time to former & earlier posts here but didn't find a clear conclusion as to what's preferred with FD-ISR snapshots when you decide to Defrag, so here is my question.

    Is it quite safe to individually defrag "ALL" your snapshots? Not archives of course since it's suggested as they get fragmented just to delete them and create new ones. Logical.

    I take it theres no real problem to "not" excluding the $ISRBIN file is there or not when using other defraggers then PD?
     
  2. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,042
    No point in individually defragging snapshots. I always defrag from primary(don't think it's really necessary) and it defrags the whole disk.

    When I tried Ultimate Defragger I didn't exclude anything and I didn't have any problem.

    Defragging archives can take at least forever if not longer.:D

    Pete
     
  3. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    I always defrag from my off-line snapshot (first one), because my on-line snapshot has no PerfectDisk.
    It doesn't matter from which snapshot you defrag.
     
  4. EASTER.2010

    EASTER.2010 Guest

    I think what you're both suggesting from experience is choose a single snapshot, in Peter2150's experience, the Primary, and from ErikAlbert's standpoint, it can be ANY snapshot at all, and i also assume it's best to Defrag with the "active" one or not?

    Thanks
     
  5. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    The snapshot where you defrag is ALWAYS the ACTIVE one.

    The main reason why I defrag in my off-line snapshot is because this is a VERY QUIET snapshot without any disturbance of any other software, but I don't think that this is important for defragging.
     
  6. EASTER.2010

    EASTER.2010 Guest

    If possible i would prefer to have offered from experience some factual proof and not just a speculation as is suggested by "i don't think". It's just as important to "know" for certain in much the same way as you prefer to know how Power Shadow works and not just what users think. ;)
     
  7. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    Sorry man, but I never considered defragging as something important.
    It has to be done, but I do it only once a month, if I don't forget it.
    I find archiving and backup alot more important.
     
  8. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,042
    I always treat my Primary snapshot as "special". But if you talk with the Raxco folks they will tell you all snapshots are created equal. I would say I have no reason for doing what I do other than what a gal who worked for me refered to as my "extreme geekiness" I guess it just helps me keep my head a round it.

    You can actually uninstall from any snapshot, and that's what you will have left on your drive.

    Pete
     
  9. EASTER.2010

    EASTER.2010 Guest

    I agree theres no real critical comparison between the two, but one of the added benefits that you can enjoy (at least i do), is blazing quick speed with your apps after a customized DEFRAG where in my case i use Ultimate Defrag to do file placement for instance to set .sys, exe, dll's, etc. closest to the outer rim of the disk platter and the least accessed apps at the inner core. I never realized untill just recently just what an added boost this really does offer a machine.

    By comparison i also used DiskKeeper on another snapshot, (yes i defragged 2 snapshots individually with equal results), and can see a marked improvement in response, very noticable indeed.

    Where my question (& this Topic) came in was if it was really worthwhile to go thru all [8] snapshots and defrag them separately or not. I do individually clear out all the excess clutter after every session in a snapshot with a regcleaner (caution taken) then use RESTORATION to completely remove (overwrite) so-called already deleted files and remove their file names also. This also boosts performance i found and is logical because theres much less for the disk heads to have to climb over during reads/writes IMO. Then after a reboot to clear index.dat i do a Copy/Update to the Archive of those particular snapshots to ensure a clean slate is available when needed.
     
  10. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,042
    Hi Easter

    For me the answer would be an absolutely not. First, I don't think Perfect Disk would do it in a way that made sense. Also since I am using less than 5% of my drives, it just didn't matter. I tried UD when it first came out and also tried there other speed up utility, and so absolutely no difference. I've also discovered IO throughput is based on a lot of other things including CPU speed, bus speed, and other stuff. I base that on the difference in speed using FDISR on my two newer machines vs the older desktop I had.

    I defrag, because it appeals to my sense of order, and also I think it might make for better backup images. But as to performance gains, can't measure them. Also both machines are raid 0, and I have been able to measure about a 20% gain on that.

    Pete
     
  11. EASTER.2010

    EASTER.2010 Guest

    Thanks. Another great aspect which is such a nice bonus with FD-ISR is that it opens up even more benefits which before i didn't even take much interest in before, the fact you can perform what a like to call a super-defrag on a snapshot, now that programs like PD, DK, and especially my favorite UD provides special placement of files for Optimum Performance.

    Not only can one work with so many diferent levels of configs (snapshots) but you can get the very best out of them too by keeping them sharp, responsive, then archiving them for use at a later data. That is of course provided we don't Update them so much to the point they get over fragmented. Even then though its a matter of recreating them again.

    That sense of order you mention is a very logical approach that obviously pays big dividends for the end user and IMO further helps enhance an already very superb instant recovery program. That's the impression i get from it anyhow.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.