UltimateDefrag - is this the best defragger ever?

i used ntfsinfo.exe http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897424.aspx

and give the command
and i get

Code:

C:\>ntfsinfo.exe C:

NTFS Information Dump V1.01
Copyright (C) 1997 Mark Russinovich
http://www.sysinternals.com

Volume Size
-----------
Volume size            : 61443 MB
Total sectors          : 125837080
Total clusters         : 15729635
Free clusters          : 6752946
Free space             : 26378 MB (42% of drive)

Allocation Size
----------------
Bytes per sector       : 512
Bytes per cluster      : 4096
Bytes per MFT record   : 1024
Clusters per MFT record: 0

MFT Information
---------------
MFT size               : 89 MB (0% of drive)
MFT start cluster      : 64
MFT zone clusters      : 5321760 - 7265184
MFT zone size          : 7591 MB (12% of drive)
MFT mirror start       : 50446

Meta-Data files
---------------

 

it's very strange
i did perform a strick placement defrag
and i get 2mb
from 7GB to 2mb
i guess it's pretty nice buggy!

Code:

NTFS Information Dump V1.01
Copyright (C) 1997 Mark Russinovich
http://www.sysinternals.com

Volume Size
-----------
Volume size            : 61443 MB
Total sectors          : 125837080
Total clusters         : 15729635
Free clusters          : 11058123
Free space             : 43195 MB (70% of drive)

Allocation Size
----------------
Bytes per sector       : 512
Bytes per cluster      : 4096
Bytes per MFT record   : 1024
Clusters per MFT record: 0

MFT Information
---------------
MFT size               : 89 MB (0% of drive)
MFT start cluster      : 5243232
MFT zone clusters      : 5266016 - 5266624
MFT zone size          : 2 MB (0% of drive)
MFT mirror start       : 5283502

Meta-Data files
---------------

 

I did a defrag with Ultimate defrag last night.

Analyzed - 51% fragmentation
Defrag with "fragmented files only"
Analyzed - 50% fragmentation
Analyzed with defraggler - 38% fragmentation

Defrag with "auto"
Analyzed - 50% fragmentation
Analyzed with defraggler - 34% fragmentation

Analyzed with o&o .12 % fragmentation
Defrag with o&o with "Space"
Analyzed with o&o - 0 % fragmentation
Analyzed with defraggler - 34% fragmentation
Analyzed with Ultimate - 50% fragmentation


I don't get it :/

 

ntfsinfo is an old program and wasn't updated for the latest version of ntfs. My MFT zone size shows up as 0 MB in Vista.

 

thanks
i use xp
which tool could i use?

 

do you have returnil or shadow defender ? The try diskeeper ? I think it will tell you the real size - just use Returnil to protect, then install the demo and reboot back to normal.

 

thanks for all you advises

it there a way to upgrade the config files of ud 2.00.48 to the last version?

 

Since the benefits of defragging are marginal (at best), most new storage media really doesn't need any defragging.

 

The Real benefit of UD2008 comes not from the defraging but rather from the ability to reduce the number of active files in play. Using UD2008 with C: OS and programs allows me to have the files used most often placed at the faster outer edge and the files rarely used archived to the middle.

As to ErikAlbert's wish - the answer is already here with SSD. On one of my machines I run OS and programs from a small 30 gb SSD and data from a 1TB drive - using UD2008 only on the data drive

 

Actually, since all modern harddrives consist of multiple platters, what you (or any defrag program) still "considers" a "fast area" could actually be the inner (slowest) part of any platter in the chain, thus, only the harddisk electronics know "where" the outer tracks on each platter are, there's no soft way to know the exact start- and end-location of each platter, making defragging close to worthless, and that explains why many defragmentations result in an actually slower responding system.

 

i have lot of setting
but if i upgrade to the new version with boot defrag
i lose my setting
is there a tip to import these setting i mean UDefrag.xml

 

That is very interesting and quite a claim. Do you have a source to support this ?

 

VERY NICE SCREEN SHOT

What in your opinion would be the best optimizrd repositioning for MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE! if i might ask.

I done a disk boot defrag with this not knowing much and my performance really accellerated!!!

EASTER

 

have ultimatedefrag command lines?

 

may i ask if ultimate defrag is able to defrag the registy files (they are sure in use)

in the boot disk there is not option to defrag the registry files

 

yes i got it
but such files are locked because they are in use

 

I have found that using the archive speeds up the defrag process.
Most of my C: WinXP and programs is archived and never moves - with past days used set to 30 days for performance and 31 for archive. My feeling is that no matter what size the disk it makes sense to archive data not used. Now if the data not used keeps changing, that would be another matter. With Windows Xp many files are only ever used once and can safely be archived - making a much smaller actual OS

 

to me
it is not able to defrag or move

Code:

C:\$Boot

ud2008 marks like locked

from Puran Defrag
http://www.puransoftware.com/Puran-Defrag.html

 

Thanks Pete

I was referring to the newest $MFT feature of UD and i moved the slider to the left and got in return some pretty impressive results (while biting nails). I would like to find the absolute best $MFT repositioning to achieve the best optimization possible with this new & welcome feature but am also very aware of the potential risk if you make a wrong turn of that setting, thats why i asked and was wondering if you've discovered your own advantages with it.

Thanks EASTER

 

why should be a risk?
it could be a risk only if your mft is corrupted

 

Understood and thanks kindly for your confirmation. Puts my concerns finally to rest per the $MFT.


EASTER