Defrag - O&O vs Diskeeper10

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by MojoWorkin, Jun 2, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MojoWorkin

    MojoWorkin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    60
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Hi,
    This is an inquiry into the benefits of O&O vs DK10.
    I have both, and have used O&O for a longer time, but DK10 has this FAAST feature I was interested in. Supposedly, FAAST moves the most accessed files to another portion of the disk for quicker response times.
    The problem I had with O&O was that it showed a total of 12% fragmented, but the numbers didn't add up.
    example: 76,340MB total, 39,224MB free, 39,261 files, 12 frag files = 12.02% fragmented... that's not even 1% by my addition.
    So I tried DK10 and it was more thourough in it's overall speed, and showed more "believable" figures.
    But this FAAST feature interests me. After a week of using DK10, it finally analyzed the files I used more often, and defragged the files, but moved them all over the disk, telling me it was a 16% improvement to allocate them this way.
    For the heck of it, I used O&O to "see" what changes were made, and there are huge gaps between the files.
    I have all my games on another drive, and the DK10 said there would be minimal increase on that drive for enabling FAAST (< 2%) so I only use it on C:\.
    Is it better to have all files close to one another as O&O does, or to seperate them as DK10 does?
    I am interested in other's interpretations as to wich is "better" for their purposes.
    Thanks for replies.
     
  2. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    well the benefit of having a contiguous block free space is that any new files wont be fragmented. as long as ur current files arent fragmented, then u should be fine.

    i would go with diskeeper's method since it optimizes the placement of files, but also remember that o&o has multiple defragging profiles that also optimize file location.

    i dont know much on the subject but i hope it helps.
     
  3. DCM

    DCM Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Posts:
    234
    I would try the fully operating, free version of PerfectDisk before making any decisions.
     
  4. MojoWorkin

    MojoWorkin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    60
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    I already have both paid versions.
    I just was wondering which was the "better" way to allocate the files on the disk:
    Seperated or Condensed
    I always defrag manually, and so far I've used the Space defrag in O&O.
    O&O always condenses the files unlike Dk10, which seperates them in FAAST.
    Thanks for pointing out the other profiles available in O&O, I missed the Complete\Access feature it had. This seems to be the equivalant function as DK10 FAAST.
    DOH! I don't always read the "Help" topics on my stuff, I just figure I know what I want... :blink:
    I just ran the O&O Compl\Access and it's waaay slow, compared to FAAST in DK10. After the O&O analyzed the volume (after DK10 ran it's FAAST) it showed only one fragmented file (Windows $log file) and after running Compl\Access, it now shows 12 frag files... what's up with that?
    Thanks again for the mention of the other profiles in O&O.
     
  5. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    But causes existing file to get fragmented if modified !
    IMHO its better to move files NEAR each other is good enough, that is eliminate the big gaps, but leave small ones, this is how the default defrag method of diskeeper works.
    I tried o&O and perfect disc, which both pack files close together, but I found even after a reboot EXISTING files were being fragmentation, after a days use, temp files being created and modified , my outlook pst file grown a little bit, there was around 100 files fragmentated, even though I had'nt added a single permanent file !

    IMHO its seems O&O with its complete defrag and perfectdisk are just wasting time defragging files AND space perfectly which just reappears after a little use.

    With diskeeper, it knows that files refragment quickly, so does'nt bother packing files close together, just elminates the big gaps.

    When O&O is saying fragmentation, is that file fragmentation, space fragmentation or a combination of both ?

    IFAAST moves files to the FASTEST parts of your disk, its performs a quick surface scan to see which parts of your disk are the fastest.

    I am not saying o&o and perfect disk are bad, infact IMHO I think the feature set of the defragger is more important that the quality of the actual defrag, because fragmentation does'nt hamper performance of NTFS much at all.
     
  6. MojoWorkin

    MojoWorkin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    60
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Thanks for the thoughts.
    After I was informed of the Complete\Access function I have been overlooking, guess I'll keep the O&O as default, and double check with DK10.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.