Question for Shadow Defender users

ruinebabine, you have performed a lot tests with your free UD defragmenter, but you haven't tried the consolidate! I don't know whether I'm missing something, but I can assure you that Windows own defragmenter, jkdefragger, and Piriform Defraggler never gave me less than 1.5 GB start with Shadow Defender.

See for yourself, I've just defragmented with consolidate, and started straight after Shadow Defender.

 

I've always used jkdefrag, and never had more than 2GB usually.

I tried puran, and the system is definitely quicker now, so I'm liking the program.

Checked SD, and D drive has dropped considerably by a couple of GB. But C drive seems to have jumped (from 2GB) to 7GB. Crazy stuff, I'll have something to play around with this week as well.

Also tried free version of UltimateDefrag, consolidate, but didn't check the fast placement option. Must be on the full version. Still C drive is now up to 7GB (previously using jkdefrag, was 2GB).

ruinebabine, try jkdefrag, see if it is any better. http://portableapps.com/apps/utilities/jkdefrag_portable

I need sleep.

 

Peter, not defragging while shadowed.

I just took the screen shots of the display screens while in shadow mode. Saved me doing a reboot.

Note - while trying a few defrag programs I'm doing a ton of reboots!

 

I should probably go re-read the manual but I am almost pretty sure that the Consolidate is already part of their Auto (OptiSeek technology, pages 33-34...) defrag method.

I am familiar with JKD and I already have it on my system. Will check with SD problem.

​

I will perform some other "defrag" variation testings, and report back.
Thanks for your help, Osaban and Saraceno.

 

NO!! !
Reread my posts carefully...

But thanks to ask btw!

 

Here's a decent defrag list.

http://donnedwards.openaccess.co.za/2007/06/great-defrag-shootout-all.html

I read the UltimateDefrag help, well parts of it, and it mentioned consolidate does a similar method to the built in XP defrag. It mentions auto being another useful method for most users.

But we're not really talking about defrag/file access speed, but SD virtualisation size.

 

Just in case anyone is wondering, and this may mean nothing, when I stated above that my SD cache, once it reaches a 150-200mb plateau, that it goes up and down like a yo-yo ... I have no other hard drives shadowed, only my primary.

Interesting info coming into this thread, folks, keep it coming!!

Acadia

 

Acadia, you've unearthed something that is yet to be explained.

Just tried the portable jkdefrag, selected defrag and optimise. Only took about 15 minutes, and see pic below. Seems jkdefrag works best with SD (for me so far).

ruinebabine, if you haven't tried, try portable jkdefrag with defrag and optimise, then if that doesn't work, try the default windows program.

 

Saraceno, I am actually running now JkDefrag GUI 1.05 on my K:\ partition, Defrag + Optimize settings ON. Shall see the outcome on SD at the end (fingers crossed!)... Thanks for info.

 

...after JKD optimization + defrag pass:
EDIT:{hear the clock ticklin' here, I mean some time is passing by here}
...I then rebooted and, then, asks SD to shadow the
K:\ partition, keeping it in shadow mode after next reboot.
And, after another rebooting, it give this below:


...better (and it seems that the number is not climbing now ), but too much again.
So I will have to continue to experiment with something else.
Ideas are welcome...​

EDIT: and NO!
K;\ partition was NOT in shadow mode in while the defragging pass...​

 

TuneUp Utilities' drive defragger was updated today and a defrag/optimizing pass made a bit more of squizzling on SD's space used:

​

 

I will tell you dudes something now. I do love SD, but defrag before you install and then do not anymore. I use to have defrags that ran for hours.

 

I tried this way too and I can assure you that it changes nothing on my "spacing problem". Even Tony did not have a definitive solution for that. It seems to also be depending of HD and partition setups.

 

It seems that I got another that I will have to do the same boring defrag job on (back-up partition on external drive)! [edit: has not been defragged for at least 1 year]

​

At least the K:\ partition is not climbing and stays stable at the same number, and it's all well on C:\ (my main windows xp partition) with 64MB.
I just feel more at ease with MB than GB when those ridiculus numbers are relate to SD spacing.

 

That is frustrating seeing the amount of space used.

I'm no hardware expert, but could it be a combination of the type/brand of hard drives with the operating system?

After three days use, mine is sitting at 1.4GB. Not bad, but I wouldn't mind seeing MBs too.

 

You're right Peter.

Indicator might not be entirely accurate, and might be just a guide.

SD also has a warning to notify when there is low space remaining. So until a user sees that low space alert, there shouldn't be anything to worry about.

 

I verified what is report by many different tool. But I will post here the 10 screenshots of what was reported by Stats 2000 on P:/ partition when in shadow mode (see SD's screenshot presented in preceding post), because this one seems to be as acurately reporting than any other similar programs also tried. People more knowledgeable than me could try to derive of them the total picture of the situation with SD's spacing.

​

...​

 

...

!​

 

And, why not, post here as well what was also reported by the other ones tried, to maybe better picture their relatived acuracy, ones to others...

​

...​

 

...

​

.

 

um ... for what its worth, fellas, I'm using the free Returnil now anyway, so you don't need to do this anymore on my account, although I have a feeling that you're all enjoying this.

Acadia

 

Ruinebabine, you are becoming too technical with your diagrams! I have been doing some tests of my own lately, and I think I can summarize the results, but I cannot explain them.
1) I can get SD to start with a volume of 0-100 MB as long as the drive is perfectly defragged and consolidated with the data on the outer edge of the disk.
2) It only works so 'efficiently' if the drive is not partitioned or if it is the only drive shadowed.
3)I did a test connecting one of my USB emergency drives (120 GB) defragged it with consolidate (It took 4 hours! I usually don't ever bother defragging external drives), and when I finally entered shadow mode simultaneously for the C: and E:, their respective volumes were C: 22 MB and E: 5 GB.
4) My original interest in this matter was purely comparative in respect to ShadowUser, as it can shadow several volumes starting with a few MB, but it needs a reboot to enter shadow mode. May be the discrepancies that exist with Shadow Defender are due to the fact that it can enter shadow mode at any time without a reboot. Why? May be this is too technical for most of us.
5) Quoting Peter2150

there's probably nothing much that can be added.