Frag me

Hi Worked on a friends PC Vista SP2, 64 bit machine, which had malware. Now clean.

Tried auslogic defrag, analyze said 23%, defrag still 23% fragged.

uninstall auslogic, install a fresh copy of auslogic. 23% before & after.

Tried defraggler before & after 23% fragged

chkdsk c:\ /R no problems found, after defrag again still 23% frag.

ALL DEFRAG OPERATIONS COMPLETE, BUT STILL 23% FRAG. TONS OF FREE SPACE.

The machine has "Comodo Time Machine", but according to there forum this should not be the problem. HELP

Rico

 

Use Puran defrag and do a boot time defrag. Restart > Defrag > Restart.

 

I would try Windows own defragger after uninstalling all other defraggers. Windows defragger is perfectly fine, and already included - so it consumes no extra disk space.

And to be sure nothing is running that is blocking the defrag option, at boot or during Safe Mode is a good idea.

 

You mentioned this PC belonging to someone else and that you fixed it for them. I would assume then that it is well within your skills to slave their drive to a different system and then defrag it as a non boot drive. That should unhook/unlock anything getting in the way of a defrag.

 

Sure, but most probably the defrag program will not correctly recognize and handle system files.

 

Huh? Why?

 

"Comodo Time Machine" is/was a clone of RollbackRX/Eaz Fix.
CTM will not allow the defragmentation of its baseline (RollbackRX/Eazfix also blocks the defragmentation APis unless the user use the "defrag" command so neither the files in the current snapshot can be defragged unless the command is issued before the actual defragging takes place).

To make it short:
Uninstall CTM -> Defrag -> Reinstall CTM

Panagiotis

 

Vopt is also a good defragger.

 

I would run Contig by MS. Then I would analyze with another program & if needed defrag again with that.

Microsoft Sysinternals Contig 1.7

http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/microsoft_sysinternals_contig.html

Contig is a single-file defragmenter that attempts to make files contiguous on disk. Its perfect for quickly optimizing files that are continuously becoming fragmented, or that you want to ensure are in as few fragments as possible.

 

No, that won't happen, it will work just fine.

 

Yo, to anyone who actually bothered to read every post in this thread, please re-read pandlouk's post #8 above. ComodoTimeMachine will KILL any defragger, it royally messes with your hard drives sectors. To do a proper defrag you actually have to uninstall the darn thing. Who the heck wants a backup program that messes with your hard drive to such an extent?! Kind of hesitate to say this because possibly off-topic: For anyone interested, there are at least two excellent programs that will do what CTM does without messing with your hard drive at such a deep level, AX64 and the newly reincarnated InstantRestore (formerly FirstDefense). Yes, those two program are slower than CTM (although still quite fast) but I would prefer a program that leaves my hard drive sectors alone, or the mapping thereof.

Acadia

 

You probably need to defragment using compact command from the sub console within CTM: http://help.comodo.com/topic-82-1-157-1275-.html

 

Absolutely *the* best policy.. While I think the complex sector mapping and sleight-of-hand is a cool thing in that it sometimes works, I prefer not to mess with disks on such a low level so often. Often meaning every single read/write operation. One glitch and your bonked!

For backup and restore purposes I just do simple imaging of my main OS disk. And file-syncing of all my user data files. This simple method has served me well for literally generations!

 

Why not avoid all the hassles and use Windows own integrated defragger?

Understand a 3rd party defragger is pretty much a waste of time and disk space. Why? A bunch of reasons:

• The basic defragger in Windows is all we need.
• The second (literally) you start to use your computer again, fragmentation starts again as old files are opened and temporarily saved, old files are modified (changing file sizes), and new files (notably 100s or 1000s of tiny temp files) are saved.
• Because fragmentation starts again immediately, the few points in defragging efficiency a 3rd party defragger might provide is quickly negated.
• Because we don't need advanced defraggers, 3rd party defraggers consume disk space unnecessarily (and freeing up disk space is a common reason to use a defragger).
• Real-time defraggers defrag with potentially 1000s of tiny temp files on the disk because real-time defraggers do not clean out the clutter first. Not cleaning the clutter first is counter to an effective defragging.
  
  
• With Window 7 and in particular Windows 8, the integrated defragging tools work in conjunction with Windows's fetch routines to optimize the file arrangement on our disks to optimize load times based on OUR computer use and habits. No 3rd party defragger does that! This means if you use a 3rd party defragger on W7, and in particular, W8, you will actually DEGRADE program load times!!!!

 

Bill, as I stated above, ANY DEFRAGGER does not work with CTM. CTM has some sort of built-in thingie, which is I believe what TOMxEU was talking about. It is the only thing remotely resembling a defragger that works with CTM.

Acadia

 

+ 1

P.S.: Be sure to not joke about the System through CTM.

 

Just one reason why not to use Windows built-in, any 3rd party defragger is about thousand times faster than inbuilt one, not to mention more informative than just showing percentages. As for the optimization, MS has very unique way of thinking, what is the best for the users, I do not share their idea, that is why I do not use superfetch either.

As for your reasons, Windows never cleans everything like a user does with CCleaner and such and defraggers actually ask to clean it, even empty recycle bin. As you stated Windows bulit-in runs pretty much all the time (or never if use a computer nonstop), a great idea to lower HDD lifespan pointlessly, since is useless to defragment temp files. Windows RAM optimizations does not work in 8 properly, I have to use Cleanmem, so why should I trust its defragger? Microsoft apps always provide just pure necessities.

 

Then don't use CTM - it is clearly flawed and may have other issues then too.

That said, sorry - but not believing it. At least I cannot find verification of sector corruption. If true, it would be all over the Comodo forums and I cannot find reports of the problems you reported. Got a link? It is recommended you don't defrag with CTM, but not because it corrupts sectors - but because it undoes what CTM does.

If anything, CTM is a gimmick IMO, at least with modern (W7 and W8 ) operating systems - but I guess that's for a different discussion.

Sorry, TOMxEU, but I think you have been misinformed completely.

1000 times faster? Not hardly, but so what? If you are defragging in the middle of your work, that's just bad time management. Defrag in the middle of the night! But contrary to what you would like us to believe, Windows defrag is not that slow. It is not the fastest but if you have properly maintained your computer in the first place, your drive(s) should never be heavily fragmented and require a lot of time.

The true facts are, a properly sized hard drive rarely (if ever!) needs defragging anyway, and should NEVER get to the point it is heavily fragmented. Why? Because disk space is cheap and users should maintain gobs of free disk space to avoid heavy fragmentation in the first place. Low free disk space and heavy fragmentation represents USER FAILURE to properly maintain the computer.

HEAVY FRAGMENTATION IS A SIGN OF LOW FREE DISK SPACE! Defragging is a Band-Aid temporary "easing" of the problem. The problem (the need for frequent defragging) will not go away until there is lots of free disk space for the OS and file system to "operate" in.

Installing (or keeping) a 3rd party defragger program when low on free disk space makes no sense.

Defragging was a big deal year ago when RAM was expensive and disks were small, slow and expensive too. Expensive RAM meant small amounts of RAM and heavy use of the Page File. Cheaper RAM means more RAM, less PF use (and why Windows managed PFs works best for the vast majority of users). Today's hard drives are much faster, have much larger buffers, and are HUGE, and very cheap compared to days of old.

"Unique" Again, hardly unique and clear you have been sadly misinformed.

Windows notes what programs you have loading with Windows and those you normally open every time YOU (the user) sit down at the computer and then arranges those files on your disk (using the Windows defragger and fetch routines) so they will load and "pop-open" faster and [hopefully] be ready when you are. That makes perfect sense to me so I do not understand what idea you might have that would result in faster loading times.

Curious? Do you have advanced doctorate degrees in the computer sciences like Mark Russinovich and other who helped developed Windows and those fetch routines?

If you have a better idea for optimizing boot and load times, I would heartedly suggest you patent, develop and market it - seriously!

As far as fancier UI - you got me there. But Windows defragger does indeed tell you percentages. I say again, we don't need more than a "basic" defragger.

With all that said - it will soon become a moot point as the world and users migrate to SSDs where defragging (and fetch routines) are disabled by default anyway.

 

It is true that the processes which lead to non-optimized volumes will resume/continue. However, that does not mean all of the optimizations which were achieved will be negated nor does it mean that all of those that will end up being negated will be negated quickly.

If I may speak to Windows XP for a moment. IIRC, its defragmenter was fairly brain dead and in general it did not perform placement optimizations. However, it did do some tracing (boot time, possibly post boot application launch too can't remember) and store related information (prefetch folder, layout.ini). The defragmenter would use that stored information to group files needed during a phase (such as boot time) together. A useful feature. However, it would basically just look for a contiguous unused space large enough to hold those files and move them there. In the process, it would under some common conditions move the files to lower transfer rate cylinders. IOW, it would frequently perform a "one step forward one step back" type of operation. The tracing information was available to third-party tools. So optimization tools which were more sophisticated in terms of moving files, freeing up space where they wanted it freed up, and moving files into that space could achieve significantly better results than the Windows XP included features. Technically speaking, I believe it was also possible for third party tools to perform their own tracing. I can't recall if any offered that feature.

Given what I said above, your statement here suggest that a) Windows 7 and Windows 8 no longer store tracing information in a way that is available to third-party optimization tools, and/or b) those tools cannot hook the system to perform their own tracing. Could you please provide more specifics and/or pointers to substantiate this claim?

Edit: I'd also be interested to know if someone has investigated specifically where the Win7 and/or Win8 tools are placing files. Not just relative to other files, but where on the volume. Is the placement optimal or do those versions, too, move things to non-optimal locations?

I'd also be interested to know what other advanced features either the Windows 7 or Windows 8 tools have. Can the user specify where they want specific files, filetypes, directories, etc moved to? Can they specify that gaps are to be created in the volume to make room for new/modified files? Things of that sort.

 

I don't use CTM or any of the RollBack derivatives and never have, I love my PC too much.

Acadia

 

I did not say, imply or suggest it will. I said because fragmentation starts immediately, any efficiency advantage provided by a 3rd party defragger is quickly negated.

No - not how it work and that does not define the problem, and it definitely is NOT a "one step forward, one step back" operation - not by a long shot! The primary advantage to defragging is putting the fragments together. That is MUCH more significant for load times than the actual location of the segments as it allows the R/W arm to step sequentially to the next sector for the next file segment instead of jumping back and forth across the drive.

That said, XP is a 4 generation old, obsolete, legacy operating system that is WAY different from W7 or W8. XP, nor features in XP should not be used to justify actions in W7 or W8.

This information is not, and never was available to 3rd party tools. As for learning about W7 or W8, I recommend Bing or Google. There are lots of tutorials and guides to how Windows 8 works. I might also suggest Windows 7 Inside Out or Windows 8 Inside Out by Ed Bott.

 

RollBack derivatives? Not sure what that means, but unless you disabled System Restore, you still have that "rollback" feature.

But regardless, you should still have a viable backup plan in place. And a backup, of course, is a "rollback" process too.

 

Are you referring to the "efficiency" of the defrag process as opposed to the "efficiency" of operations following the completion of that process?

Well that's the results I saw when I ran some tests. The defragmenter had grouped at least boot time files together but they *were* on lower transfer rate cylinders. This was the result on a couple of systems I tested. Its theoretically possible that at some point after that testing the behavior was changed and/or there was some other factor involved, but those were the results.

Both are important, and claims that one is more important than the other without specifying the precise context (how far/much are we seeking vs how much slower is the transfer rate for example) won't move us forward.

Fair point, but that doesn't establish whether the Win7 and/or Win8 defragmenters have the same or similar limitations to the one shipped with XP. I only mentioned XP as a way to bring up and zero in on a specific behavior that I saw and that is highly relevant to what we're discussing. Note that I also asked if someone has actually investigated the file placements when using Win7 and/or Win8 tools. Also asked some other questions that would help people determine if the Win7 and/or Win8 tools have some advanced features. Those are specifics worth discussing I think.

That is not consistent with what I've read. My rough understanding is that trace information is gathered and stored in the .pf files (not a publicly documented format IIRC, but somewhat documented by computer forensics folks and probably others) and from the information in those files a layout.ini file is created. The built-in defragmenter will use information within layout.ini to make on-disk optimizations, or if so configured, a third-party tool can "take over" that responsibility and perform its own on-disk optimizations using the layout.ini information. If you disagree with this and/or feel it is missing something, please be specific.

 

Please forgive me, I meant Rollback RX!! Sheeesh ...

Acadia