defraggers and file optimizations

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by WSFuser, Oct 26, 2007.

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

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    If I set JkDefrag, PerfectDisk, and O&O Defrag to all defrag based on last modification date or last change, would I get similar (if not the same) results?
     
  2. Huupi

    Huupi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Posts:
    2,024
    Why so many,guess Perfect Disk is perfect to do it on his own.
     
  3. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    Let me clarify my hypothetical situation: If I had three disks with the same data and same fragmention, then ran one defragger for each disk (defrag going by modification date). Would I get similar results afterwards?
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2007
  4. mrfargoreed

    mrfargoreed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Posts:
    356
    Hey WSFuser

    I've been having problems with my disk lately and wondered if it was a defrag problem.

    I usually use PerfectDisk, but it actually seems to SLOW my machine down. I installed O&O defrag pro 10 and it gave a totally different result of fragmentation to PD. PD stated my fragmentation was 0, O&O said it was much higher. I then tried UltimateDefrag, which agreed totally with O&O.

    I defragged with O&O (Access method placing data in the order it was accessed) and noticed a much quicker performance in my machine. Once finished, I checked it with UD and the fragmentation by O&O was absolutely perfect - 0%.

    I haven't tried an access method with UD as it is far too slow for me. I used the Auto method on my Data drive a week ago which took a few hours. Yesterday I tried it again - same method - and it took an absolute age to really get going (I'm talking 2-3 hours and a couple of restarts).

    This may not answer your question as such, but O&O and UltimateDefrag seemed to concur with each other. PD seemed to differ on my machine.

    I would like to use UD regularly, but the time it took to defrag/optimize my disk was unacceptable considering I had only run the program a week previously.
     
  5. Huupi

    Huupi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Posts:
    2,024
    On my workstation i use a raptor 72 gb with windows and app., and intelcore2 duo E6850 so performance is no problem, i guess fragmentation has also lesser impact as with my older sata disks,but from experience i know that if you can configure your disk the way you like which is possible with UD then the performance gain is remarkable.The analizing and defrag with UD was also very fast,really faster as compared with PD so your ages to defrag with UD i have no answer.
     
  6. Long View

    Long View Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Posts:
    2,295
    Location:
    Cromwell Country
    Good to see that I'm not alone on this one. I have tried UD several times now and found it takes too long and produces no benefit. could it be differences in hardware ? I'don't know. I do know that they keep offering me 50% off in the next 7 days but not interested. I use deepfreeze and Returnil so disks are pretty much as I left them every time I reboot. when I do need to defrag never takes more than 30 or 40 seconds even on an old machine.
     
  7. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,055
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Speaking about this subject, my hdd is heavily fragmented, but it will probably take about 2 hours or more to defrag it, so I won´t even bother to do a full defrag. But my system does feel a bit slower so I decided to defrag a couple of folders (can anyone recommend which folders to defrag?) with Power Defragmenter and I rearranged/defragged the bootfiles and pagefile with TuneXP and PageDefrag. I noticed that Windows OS menu´s and thumbnails in Xnview now load faster, so it did help. :)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.