The latest in defragmenting?

The trouble is that there is no dump done, even if I have set Windows to write the kernel dump in case of a crash. All I can do is take a picture of the BSOD. I'll do it next time...

 

I think the effect are the same as with a well defragmented drive, except there is no specific or tailored optimization like the one you can perform for instance with UltimateDefrag. Application are loading pretty fast and it stays that way. Also, I don't have to remember to perform a defrag now and then.

The main drawback, except for the BSOD, is the fact that I have to disable background defrag on system and data partitions when I want to image them, because VSS and defrag at the same time can corrupt a disk (a bug in the defrag API acknowledged by MSFT).

 

That's a shame, it did a dump for me.

 

Thanks. I didn't know about the defrag bug, good to know.

 

The warp drive thing is pretty interesting how it regulates and plays traffic cop to writes when you've got 20billion services all vying for disk attention.

I don't like the added instability and reduction in NTFS robustness caused by warp drive. That's too high a price. At any rate, people should be doing SSD for apps and os, and mechanical for user data. If the SSD is small, like 64GB or 128GB, it should be affordable to all.

 

I dropped Auslogics Disk Defrag and decided to go with O&O Defrag Professional 17.

I tried Warp Disk, but didn't notice a huge jump in performance, as others are experiencing.

I put O&O on as my primary defragmenter and noticed a huge gain in performance.

So, I guess I'll be sticking with O&O from now on.

 

One thing about the $MFT is that you can not only defrag it to make it contiguous on the disk in terms of physical placement. But you can sort its B+ tree layout using a utility from Paragon. This removes all the dead spots and typically reduces the size by about 30-40%.

As far as I can tell, no defragger does this.

 

Keatah, could the deadspots be old file addresses that are still left there until the old file disk space has been written over? For instance, those software that can recover previously "erased" files: do they use old information still persisting in the MFT to identify where the old files are on the disk? Would cleaing those deadspots be in effect the real death toll of the "erased" files, making it impossible for recovery software to recover anything? Or are the deadspots just a manifestation of sloppiness?

 

Both. And none.

You have all kinds of recovery techniques. Some programs use remnants of what's left in the MFT and begin there. Other programs search the disk looking for file headers and patterns (of popular formats) in the data. And some programs use both aspects in their scans.

Disks & files that are not fragmented are the ones that have the best chance of recovery, i.e. the least cross-linked or partially overwritten files. And that's the problem with a lot of recovery software. They pay attention to only the file header, and what follows after that. They don't follow the train of sectors.

But yes, concatenating the $MFT makes recovery much more difficult. A recovery program won't be able to assign a filename unless the filename is embedded and the recovery program is aware of that specific (whatever it may be) filetype.

But compacting the $MFT and taking out all the dead space is a security measure for those of you that worry about such things. The dead spots are usually not dead at all.

Assume a filename like Carol.jpg is in the $MFT as a matter of course, when you delete it, it now becomes _arol.jpg - and there's still a lot of residue left behind for recovery to work with. The "_" tells the filesystem this slot is available to overwrite next time around.

Which leads me to one other thing, a file that is deleted and then "tried to have been recovered" immediately is at risk for being overwritten. Why? Because NTFS has its eye on those just-opened-up spots. They're still in the buffers!


These two folks are having issues with broken file trails, so to speak. The files are fragmented and the recovery program can't trace to the next sector. I swear that forum is full of the blind leading the blind! god help them all!
http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=39610
http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=39620

Here are a bunch of overwritten stuff. Nothing for a program to scan for.
http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=39596

And this one has physical damage from being dropped. And yet they've got people advising scanners and freezing and all that. What might have been a simple $500 job has now become $2000 or no-go situation. Ughhh!!
http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=39590

You can read more about logical data recovery here - http://runtime.org/ - they've got a good section that's worth reading. With the best advice a novice can get. I didn't mean for this to turn into a rant or rave or sound like a troll. I just get all steamed up but good when I see non experts being given bad advice by people that sound like experts and can't make up their minds. You don't freeze a disk that has been dropped suffered a head crash (if powered on) or now-de-aligned heads (if powered off) and expect it to work. Gotta love those internet myths!

Just a note to everyone, data loss is ugly whatever spin you put on it. So keep your shiht backed up and you'll never worry about data recovery again!

 

Keatah, thanks for the clarificatoin.

Roger_m, you asserted that defragmenters don't defrag boot sectors.

I said before that I would not be specific about which software put music files (and unrelated .EXE files, by the way) in my boot area. Because that software did not hurt me one bit, I see no need to drag its name in this discussion. However, by removing names, I feel that tech support's response will be a clean addition to our ongoing discussion about boot sectors. So, [...] will substitute for the software name. Otherwise, the following is just a copy & paste of part of the e-mail:

"[...] is only moving files that windows has identified as a boot file. Windows will automatically "watch" the boot process and will eventually form a "picture" of what drivers, etc… get loaded during the boot process. [...] gets the list from windows and then places those drivers, programs, etc.. at the beginning of the drive.

At some point in that process it seems that some of your music files were flagged in windows as boot files. I am not aware of a process that can remove this from the boot file list."

=========

The first paragraph says that this defragger takes a list of files from Windows and rewrites it at the "beginning of the drive." Which is what I've kept saying: defraggers can re-write or re-arrange boot areas.

Tech support's last sentence suggests something a little close to your point ("I am not aware of a process that can remove this from the boot file list"). But the software took that list and REWROTE it in DIFFERENT locations. Moreover, I tried another defragger just after that incident. It actually REMOVED the unrelated files from the HD's very first sectors. Then, what remained there were truly OS files (that looked related to booting as well). That second defragger shall also remain nameless, since I just want to discuss this particular boot sector incident without promoting or demoting any name.

Conclusion. Defraggers can re-write and re-position the boot area, which was my initial point.

 

They do not. You are referring to the boot area, not the boot sector.

 

i do not like warp i tried it out and it did not do much for me in fact it seemed to actually slow the system down some. i have been a perfectdisk user since version 10 and i just recently installed O&O 17 and initially had some issues with it but i did notice a system speed up. its not drastic but for sure noticable. i do however still have a issue with one usb drive not being able to be read by the system while O&O is running. still not sure why. also perfectdisk 13 will be out soon and ill give that a shot when it comes out.

 

I wonder how long it will be before the other members on here see through
posts like this for what they are.

A rather poorly disguised attempt to hit back at the people who banned you from Piriform (and this isn't the first), and I was one of the moderators who happily put my name to seeing the back of you.

Why don't tell your fellow members why you were shown the door?

On a forum where people come for help with the free software they use, Recuva, you made a habit of recommending the professional recovery as the only way to go. I used to wonder if in fact you were sending private messages to some of these people with details of how you could fleece help them for a few hundred dollars or more. Of course I only wondered that, and wouldn't think of actually accusing you of doing such a thing.

We do our best with the knowledge we have, and we endeavour to help people with free software, and maybe avoid them of going down the road of spending a huge amount of money on a pro recovery attempt and get nothing back in return.

And I stand by the posts you've linked to above as helpful advice given the details of their problems.

And I'll point out a blatant inaccuracy in one of your bitter musings above ...

http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=39596

If you look at the OP's screenshot in post number 4, and read the topic properly, you'll find that most of his files are lying in a 433.76GB partition of unallocated space. No one suggested he scan for his files as you so sarcastically suggest.

Why don't you just move on from what was obviously a bitter and much regretted experience at Piriform, and stay the hell away. You're time on there has gone and you will never be able to return.

And instead of firing criticism and sarcasm at people who, unlike you, are trying to aid folk for free, in their own time, and as best they can, why don't you devote your time on here to doing something similar.

You're very sad, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who will be thinking that.

And I will add that the example posts of mine you link to, there isn't any advice given in any of them which could do harm or make the posters situation worse. I stand by every one of those posts, and I'm sure the posters will appreciate the efforts given, especially the links to other free software which were provided to show the poster that his files are probably unrecoverable.

Unlike you, we don't jump on the "you need pro recovery" bandwagon as the best and only advice. We don't recommend pro recovery at all as that is not what they come to Piriform for, and is something a person must decide for themselves.

I've responded to your pathetic attempts at payback, which I'm entitled to do, and I won't be responding again. Next time you feel like slinging mud, why don't you devote the effort to something more worthy, because believe me, people will see it for what it is.

Apologies to the moderators on here and to the other contributors to this topic, but ...

... that's exactly what it was and what he is.

Of course that's JMHO.

 

As is always been my practice of standing at odds sometimes with my radically different security setups rather then going with flow of the usually more routine vendors that most members bounce back and forth in between from our limited pool of the same old security choices who seem to always promise better results but consistently prove they are.satisfied with their cozy place in an endless revolving door of losing customers knowing they will return again sooner or later.

On my own windows 8 x64 i experience flawless defrag results with DiskTrix Ultimate Defrag 4 as an unmatched resource for accurate disk sector analysis and custom strategic files placement management for absolute best physical disc performance without negative impact to either the mechanics or electrical CPU functions whatsoever.

UD4's modern optical disc metaphor alone is proved an innovation worthy of any and all hype it ever attracted being a.new.groundbreaking useful visual aid for end users and is
the only one of it's kind to my knowledge.

Immediately thereafter i employ a follow up defrag operation with Puran Defrag that accurately picks up and successfully flls in any leftover empty gaps either missed or passed over just like multi security apps do.

Whatta ya think?

Regards Easter

 

I liked UD a lot, until version 3 and a certain build. After that, they changed something to their algorithm and it either caused errors (the defrag would not complete with an error message) or re-defrag was not optimized as before. And theses issues were transported into the version 4, at least the one I tried. Even if I got a license, I stay with UD3 and a specific build.

 

I'm going to play devil's advocate and speculate that if you look at your disk with HDView it probably won't be half as pretty as DiskTrix makes it look, and that custom file placement strategies are more likely to slow things down than speed them up unless you have an innate understanding of how Windows/NTFS accesses files

 

100% agreed there i no longer use it and do not think i would ever buy it again honestly. for me it also caused chkdsk errors at times as well. it also affected perfectdisk once i uninstalled ud 3 or 4 and then installed perfectdisk i had to run chkdsk to even get perfectdisk to run properly and even then sometimes it refused to run a boot time after ud was on the same system.