Diskeeper 11 vs PerfectDisk 8?

Howard, I agree with that + minimising refragmentation is more important than optimising existing fileplacement (at the cost of refragmentation).

From what I remember of the older diskeeper's, files are simply placed where they fit best in the existing gaps, which mirrors how the default NTFS drivers place files.

I think diskeeper's strategy is to leave gaps after files (as ntfs does and linux ext2/3 on a folder basis which works great) to allow expansion in the future, I cant say this works any better or worse than how PD does things from a refragmentation point of view.

Fuser... if you use XP windows automatically places programs in a prefetch folder where the placement is optimised for execution.

 

THe real issue is that I believe Raxco has patent that was foolishly issued by the US Patent Office regarding the use of modification date.

So rather than have a legal battle, others seek other algorithms.

That's not possible.
A folder is no more than a directory file, or some other structure, that points to the locations of the files in that directory.

A file system does reserve space within the directory structures to reduce the ned to refragment the directory, but that does not affect the files described by the directory.

Some files, usually system files, might be recorded in specific locations with reserved space, but, in the general case, this is app specific and not under the control of the file system.

Biased, or not, the papers at Raxco's web site demonstrate how PD does better. In general, PD does a better job of defragging on te first pass, whilst other products seem to require more passes.

After all, if files are arranged by modification time, then it is usually the files at the end that need to be repeatedly defragged.

It's more complicated than that. See pages 461-462 of the Windows Internals book by Dave Solomon and Mark Russinovich.

 

http://www.pcinpact.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/transpi.gif http://www.pcinpact.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/transpi.gif http://www.pcinpact.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/transpi.gif ive deleted that function...

a faster hard disk might be more beneficial tho maybe idk. just something im considering for my next pc.

 

Fwiw, based on my experience neither DK10 or PD8 works with Rollback Rx installed.
(without RB, they are both very capable defraggers and while they are quite different in their look & feel, I'd be hard pressed to say one was better than the other).

 

Now we are talking.
Why not utilize the features of FD-ISR and install Perfectdisk 8 in one snapshot and diskeeper 11 in another and 0&0 in a third one and take some time to get hands-on experience?
They all work with FD-ISR.

 

It makes no sense to use more than one defragger.

 

well since each is in a different snapshot, i presume they wont affect each other.

 

I was under the impression that the poster wanted to evaluate software and get feedback from users.

 

you cant use more than one defragger IMO because it will undos the other ones job.

 

that is correct, but could u not test each defragger individually in its own snapshot?

 

well of course you could. I tested all the defraggers separately and in the end choose diskeeper and am happy with it.

my pc wasnt working to well after i installed perfectdisk i dont know if it was a conflict or not but the main thing is i got a defragger that im happy with.

 

arent snapshots just like other files? sry, im not familiar with such software.

 

After testing all three, Perfect Disk beat them all in testing the read and write areas of my raid 0 setups. Other two, Diskeeper and O & O Defrag made the read and write less when testing using Dr. Hardware 2006 Benchmark Hard Disks. Never did trust those improvement stats that Diskeeper gives.

dja2k

 

which defrag method did u use when testing o&o?

i must say this discussion is tempting me to go back to PD.

 

Here a test between Diskeeper's Diskeeper 10, Raxco Software's PerfectDisk 7.0, and Winternals Software's Defrag Manager 4.0. You never think who won.
http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/print.cfm?articleid=50064

 

your right IMO.

I still dont know what caused all those problems when i installed perfect disk because ive heard good things about it. but when i got rid of it and installed diskeeper things where back to normal. problems such as more crashes and stuff. i dont know if it was the fact that i tryed 0&0 uninstalled and went staight to perfectdisk. because it might not of liked that. its still a very good product thou and i just had a bad experience probaly one out of 100,000 installs.

 

Nope/
Sure they will, defraggers re-arrange a drive.

 

The easiest way to compare defraggers is to use, say, an external USB drive:

0. Make the drive NTFS to simplify testing.
1. Put wharever test files you wish on the drive.
2. Make an image backup of the drive.
3. Raxco provides a tool that permits you to approximate how long it will take to read files.
4. Use that tool to get measurements BEFORE a defrag.
5. Now for each prog use wish to test, I'll refer to PD and O&O to make it easier:
a. Defrag with PD.
b. Save the report of the defrag results.
c. Run the Raxco tool that times flie reads, save the results.
d. Restore the drive from the backup image of the original files.
e. Raxco provides a tool that scramables the files(fragments 'em).
f. Run that tool and save an image of the scrambled drive.
g. Defrag with PD.
h. Save the report of the defrag results.
i. Run the Raxco tool that times flie reads, save the results.
j. Restore the drive from the backup image of the original files.
h. Repeat the above with another defrag program, but use the same scrambled image you created above.

To have a really valid test, you would need to perform the above many times
The evidence I have seen indicates that PD does better on a single defrag pass and may require less future defrags. This is highly dependent on the files you use, file system used, etc.

I have not looked at O&O since Feb, so I do not recall what algorithms they are using, but I would guess that, in the general case, it is hard to beat sortig the files based on modification time. PD just was lucky enough to get to the market first with that algorithm.

 

What is the best defrag software that include the "defrag automatically when pc is inactive" option?

 

Each defragger interacts with things differently.

Diskkeeper disables use of the built-in dfragger, unless that has changed in recent releases.

PD does not disable built-in defragger, it cares not, so you can use them both.

As I recal, O & O optionally disables the built-in defragger.

But the bottom line is that EVERY defragger uses the same defrag code, i.e., the built-in MSFT Defrag API. they differ only:

1. In the user interface.
2. How to layout the defragged files.
3. Whether they can co-exist with the built-in defragger.
4. The overhead, if you are silly enough to ask the defrag program to monitor the fragmentaion. Normally, I would expect you can run an analysis very 1-3 months to determine whether you need to defrag, just depends on the system.

I have 3 hard drives, with 10 logical drives, and 4 OS. I have lots of files shared by the OSes, and lots of files installed on other than the OS drive. So careful file organization also plays a factor.

Using PD, I go for quite a while before PD recommends a further defrag.

 

id say o&o. i think it does a better job than diskeeper.

as for perfectdisk, it doesnt have any such feature.

 

PD8 does.

 

Depends on the defrag methods used. I found that if you use O&O stealth, space, PD with no rearrange options or diskeeper without Ifaast, that they did'nt conflict, but as soon as you used one of the arrangement methods of O&O, PDs standard placement or DK Ifaast then they conflicted.