DefragExpress Launched

Hi Isso,
Ok, got it one slow defrag and then fast defrags. But this is something your competitors also offer. I would really like to evaluate DiskExpress over a longer period to judge it better, but the 7 day trial is really a pain.

 

Hi Isso

Most kind on both counts. The current defrag run is nearly 'cooked' so when it is finished I will posted back against my original post or just post back with the details of previous and after...and perhaps we can take a view if I need to take you up on your kind offer of a PM conversation to see what can be resolved.

My thanks



Balders

 

Defrags are definitely faster than in PD but I am not noticing any increase in speed or responsiveness. Maybe it is my laptop but the only time I notice any speed improvement is with a boot time defrag of system files.

 

Now there is a thought re. a product improvement. What about an option or the like to carry out or schedule a boot time defrag of system files?

Plus, given what I think I will discover about when to use the 'Thorough' option WITH or WITHOUT the Sub Options enabled...is there not a way, as part of the Analysis option, to suggested which to use based on what the Analysis option finds, ie, in my case it may have noticed a particular trend in terms of existing placement, no. of fragments, file count, etc., or even optimisation level, that WITH or WITHOUT should be suggested.

Again, just the thoughts of an ill informed nutter, but I thought I would air them anyway...just in case!

 

Eice, Sully,

I don't want to name the defraggers that performed worse than DefragExpress in my tests - certanily I'm not here to start "holy wars". We have plans to develop a complete test suite for benchmarking defraggers - after it's complete I'll come with a comprehensive comparative review. For JkDefrag I'll just make a small remark - please read post #6 in this thread - I was explaining the difference between FFO defrag and Consolidated defrag. JkDefrag like all of freeware defragmenters I've had a chance to test uses FFO mode. I must mention it has an interesing feature to place files into different zones accoring to their use.

For real speed improvement - you are correct, normally there is little speed improvement on drives with ample free space (>70%). The only exception is a presence of highly fragmented files (files that have hundreds ot thousands of fragments are rather slow to read). As for the drives that have less than 50% of free space and that are being used a lot - defragmentation does have noticable speed increase. Moreover - if the final file layout is crafted to allow file access with minimal excessive HDD head moves the machine feels much faster. You can read the details on UD webpage - http://www.disktrix.com/ultimatedefrag_about.htm

 

I've got other programs installed with defraggers built in.They are TU 2008 and ASC pro.Would these affect your defragger if I installed it?

 

vijayind,

I've already sent the request about extending 7 days trial to management. This is all I can do.

ffreedom01,

Please check the second paragraph of my post to Eice and Sully (#30). Yes, your HDD may be in already good shape. But as you continue to use it it may become to a point when you notice it's becoming slower, this is where defragmentation should help.

Baldrick,

Thank you for suggestions. I've had a short talk about boot time defrag in UltimateDefrag thread explaining the curernt situation. I'm not sure if management will decide to include boot time defrag to DE - we'll see.

As for suggesting sub options - it's more a preference of the user than a need of the system. For example - "Use fast consolidate" will make defragmenting much faster, but may leave small free spaces. So you decide whether you need faster defrag or more thorough. The other two options make defrag to take more time. But the system speed is better when they are on. If you have enough free time for the first run I would recommend to do Thorough defragmentation with only second and third options checked. For subsequent defrags use Thourough with only the first option checked.

 

I'm not here to start an argument or war either, but I do feel obliged to correct what I believe to be misinformation, as it usually gives us all a chance to learn from each other. Your description of FFO mode and applying it to JkDefrag is accurate ONLY if you launched JkDefrag with command-line options to tell it not to optimize anything. Otherwise it performs like most other defraggers, and consolidates free space when it's done defragging files, with some extra options such as zones (as you mentioned), allocating empty space for temp files, and a handful of other optimization methods.

Given your status as a professional software developer, I believe you're starting off with a comfortable quota of respect from us forum members. It would be a shame to see you lose it by supplying continuous amounts of incorrect information about your competitors.

 

rookieman,

I think there will be no problem. But if one of the defraggers arranges files in some way and then you run another that arranges in other way - you just cause excessive wear to your HDD.

 

Understood.

However, I sincerely hope you will elaborate on exactly in what way (or ways) UD 2009 is "much much better" than v1.72 at some point in the future.

Although v1.72 is definitely "in the past", it is still available, still freeware, and still, ostensibly, functions as intended. Thus, UD 2009 doesn't just need to be "much much better" than v1.72; UD 2009 needs to be ~$40 better than v1.72 (a standard which, IMHO, far exceeds the "much much better" standard).

 

Eice,

You are right - JkDefrag does consolidate free space when optimization is on. The problem is that it's not a ordinary consolidate that I described. What I meant is a quick fill of all free spaces with any available files. What JkDefrag is doing is removing all existing files and placing other files there. This is similar to "Strict sorting" method of UD, and it's a lengthy procedure. But it does result in consolidated free space. I'm sorry for confusion.

 

OK, the results are now in an compiled re. the difference (on my HDD I should point out) in terms of running

'Thorough' with ALL sub options CHECKED...which in my case did not seem to improve the overall picture very much, and with ALL sub options UNCHECKED

UNCHECKED

Size = 21.3Gb
Free space = 6.13Gb

File count = 70,692
Fragmented files = 1,472
Fragment count = 12,001

Optimisation level = 57.81% (Red)
Defrag time = 02:47:25

CHECKED

Size = 21.3Gb
Free space = 6.13Gb

File count = 70,700
Fragmented files = 10
Fragment count = 5,703

Optimisation level = 93.76% (Amber)
Defrag time = 01:47:33

Seems conclusive that in my case, ie, the state that my partition was in an initial run of 'Thorough' with ALL sub options CHECKED was not the right approach but with ALL sub options UNCHECKED.

Now, I am wondering if the low free space available on my disk may have something to do with this result and if so then it could be something detected by the Analyse phase and the user givena suggestion as to what options to run?

The question is now what further should I do?

given what Isso has stated above, ie,

a Thorough defragmentation with only second and third options checked, and there after a Thorough with only the first option checked?

It looks like the deciding factor could be the free disk space available on my HDD

Isso, I would appreciate your comments on this but can I say that so far ED is the only defragger I have run that has been able to sort out the frag levels in this partition.

I feel my wallet twitching...help!!!!!

 

prius04,

There are tons of bugfixes and a number of new features in UD2009. If I have enough time I'll talk about them a bit later.

As for "much much better" vs "~$40 better than v1.72" - I'm not a salesmen, so I can't comment on it. Let the customer decide.

 

Baldrick,

I think i know what the problem is. You have "Exclude files greater than" checked, right? If yes - try to uncheck it and do a Thorough defrag with only the first checkbox on. It should defrag completely.

 

For the record, I think that not all the features of UD v1.72 are enabled in the freeware version...I think that Boot Time defrag is one of them.

 

Yes, quite true; no boot time defrag in v1.72. The problem there, of course, is that the boot time module included in UD 2008 does NOT function properly for many UD 2008 users, myself included, who paid for the product.

EDIT: As a result of the foregoing, and assuming the UD 2008 boot time module does NOT work for a particular user, I'm having a tough time figuring out precisely why anyone would want to actually pay for a product (like DefragExpress or UD) when they might get comparable results, or at least very close thereto, for free.

 

I did have it checked. have unchecked it and am currently doing the recommended Thorough defrag with only the first checkbox on. Will post back on the results shortly.

Cheers

PS. If this works and there was some way to propose the appropriate settings as part of the Analysis option then I thnk that it would be an excellent idea as if I can get it wrong then so can others. Alternatively, if that is not possible then perhaps ED should be installed with the "Exclude files greater than" UNchecked as the default, and the hover help explain more about using it?

Just another wild thought.

 

Understandable! That is that user's choice and why it is best to trial before one buys...my small and aforementioned issue is the length of the ED trial period (see a previous post). Isso, has kindly offered to represent that back to the management and see if they are prepared to change anything re. that.

 

I agree completely; try before one buys is the best policy.

Unfortunately, the UD 2008 trial did NOT include the boot time module. Thus, there was no way to trial a fully functioning version of UD 2008; you had to pay for the product first in order to get the version with the boot time module.

A 30-day guarantee was offered but many of us were led to believe that the boot time issues were in the process of being resolved and were waiting for a fix:

Statement by Rob F:
"We will pass on the system information and errors to the development team and we ask for your patience as we resolve any issues."

 

I was a bit dismayed to see in the other thread that "the development team", i.e., for boot-time module, is a third party. Hopefully, it is given some needed priority rather than remaining a weak link for this product.

 

Isso, Welcome!!
Very cool you joined up!!

 

Hi Isso

Here are the results:

'Thorough' with sub options -

ALL UNCHECKED

Size = 21.3Gb
Free space = 6.13Gb

File count = 70,700
Fragmented files = 10
Fragment count = 5,703

Optimisation level = 93.76% (Amber)
Defrag time = 01:47:33

JUST FIRST CHECKED AND "Exclude files greater than" UNCHECKED

Size = 21.3Gb
Free space = 6.13Gb

File count = 70,702
Fragmented files = 10
Fragment count = 1697

Optimisation level = 93.93% (Amber)
Defrag time = 02:02:35

I am now going to try ALL UNCHECKED & "Exclude files greater than" UNCHECKED, just as an experiment (I am not fixating by BTW ) to see if that allows an improvement. If not and you cannot suggest anything else I will go with 10 files fragmented and a 93.93% optimisation level...which is way, way, way better than before using DE (and I had tried a number of other defraggers both freeware and not).

Will post back with the results...but I have a further question already. Once this latest attempt with no sub options enabled, etc. is complete should I try
to do a Thorough defragmentation with ONLY the 2nd & 3rd options checked, and then for subsequent defrags use Thorough with ONLY the 1st option checked...to get the file placement optimised

Your thoughts gratefully accepted.

Cheers


Balders

 

Hi Isso

Have run a Thorough with ALL UNCHECKED & "Exclude files greater than" UNCHECKED

Here are the results:

BEFORE

Size = 21.3Gb
Free space = 6.13Gb

File count = 70,702
Fragmented files = 10
Fragment count = 1697

Optimisation level = 93.93% (Amber)
Defrag time = 02:02:35

AFTER

Size = 21.3Gb
Free space = 6.13Gb

File count = 70,706
Fragmented files = 11
Fragment count = 1732

Optimisation level = 98.07% (Green)
Defrag time = 40mins 41secs

SO fragmented file count has gone up + 1 whilst the optimisation % has gone up +4.11% and defrag time has gone down significantly.

I think that I will call it a night at this stage and perhaps tomorrow try
to do a Thorough defragmentation with ONLY the 2nd & 3rd options checked, and then for subsequent defrags use Thorough with ONLY the 1st option checked...to get the file placement optimised

Do you think that this is worth it or not? Your thoughts gratefully accepted.

Cheers


Balders

 

Balders,

I don't think subsequent passes will lead to better defragmentation. I have one more suggestion - if you're running Windows 2003 or Vista and have System Restore turned on, you might want to try and turn that service off temporary - until defragmentation finishes. Important: please note that you'll lose the saved volume restore points, so do that ONLY if you don't need to restore the volume to previous state. Generally system restore on that OSs isn't compatible to defragmenting and it increases defrag time significantly and prevents complete defragmentation. On XP it's not an issue.

If you try the above option and still don't get all files defragmented then you most likely have some file system corruption.

 

I did awhile back. No refund yet.