Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

Defragmention Question

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1
thecavern

thecavern

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 46 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07

I am thinking about running the defragmention feature.

 

However, I'm not sure whether I really need to do so.

 

Is there any way to check the hard drive prior to running defragmention

in order to determine whether defragmention needs to be executed ?

 




How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
MrJinje

MrJinje

    Tool™ Developer

  • Developer
  • 1,067 posts
  • Joined 14-October 09
  • OS:Server 2012R2
  • Country: Country Flag

Get the DiskTrix free Domain edition and give it a look-see.  The graph is easy to read and offers more detail than anything else.

 

http://www.pcworld.c...in-edition.html

 

I'd give the file/folder defrag (alphabetically and closer to $MFT) to improve performance.  Even if your files are 100% defragged, you can be a little faster if the files are re-aligned closer to the master file table.



#3
Tripredacus

Tripredacus

    K-Mart-ian Legend

  • Super Moderator
  • 9,970 posts
  • Joined 28-April 06
  • OS:Server 2012
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I'm fairly certain that Vista will automatically defrag the disk by default.


MSFN RULES | GimageX HTA for PE 3-5 | lol probloms
tpxmsfn1_zps393339c1.jpg

#4
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,675 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I'm fairly certain that Vista will automatically defrag the disk by default.

Something else, set apart your fair certainty? ;)

http://www.howtohave...mentation.shtml

 

The "issue" is that anything where fragments are 64 Mb or more is considered "contiguous".

 

@MrJinje

Have you actually read what is listed as "Pro"? :w00t: on that site:

 

Pros

  • Free
  • Intelligent placement of files during defrag
  • Excellent drive display
  • Awkward and confusing interface

 

:lol:

 

Seriously, before starting the usual flamewar about which defragmenting utility is better, there are several freeware ones available, besides running a ful defrag from command line, more or less each of them does what is needed, and the actual differences in results between any two of them are one of those things that only a few experts may (please note the dubitative form) be able to understand/benchmark/compare properly.

Other well known tools are:

http://ultradefrag.s...t/en/index.html

http://www.kessels.com/jkdefrag/

 

jaclaz



#5
MagicAndre1981

MagicAndre1981

    after Windows 7 GA still Vista lover :)

  • Patrons
  • 6,128 posts
  • Joined 28-August 05
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

run defrag C: /A, this should show you if Windows thinks it needs defragmentation.


Posted Image

#6
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,675 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

run defrag C: /A, this should show you if Windows thinks it needs defragmentation.

Very, very different from the defrag C: -a -v suggested in the given link :whistle::

http://www.howtohave...mentation.shtml

 

jaclaz



#7
MagicAndre1981

MagicAndre1981

    after Windows 7 GA still Vista lover :)

  • Patrons
  • 6,128 posts
  • Joined 28-August 05
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

sorry, haven't looked at your link because your other links suggested ugly 3rd party tools.


Posted Image

#8
MrJinje

MrJinje

    Tool™ Developer

  • Developer
  • 1,067 posts
  • Joined 14-October 09
  • OS:Server 2012R2
  • Country: Country Flag

@MrJinje

Have you actually read what is listed as "Pro"? :w00t: on that site:

 

Pros

  • Awkward and confusing interface

 

Other well known tools are:

http://ultradefrag.s...t/en/index.html

http://www.kessels.com/jkdefrag/

 

Yeah, they don't host it on Disktrix.com anymore, so the only places to find it are on CNET and other download sites.  Hadn't seen that 'pro' but don't matter, I like the app, works fine for me.  But whichever advanced defragger (also had never seen the other two before) you use, I can verify that normal defragging does not cut it on drives with hundreds of thousands of small files.  Things like searches/scans etc take longer because the defragged files are not 'in order'.  Meaning when the hdd is jumping one section of the platter to reach the next tiny file it adds milliseconds delay each time.   Not noticeable until you have a vast number of files, but things like Anti-Virus can shave off a few seconds / minutes of run-time.

 

Normal Defrag = randomly putting all books on one shelf

Advanced Defrag = dewey decimal system.   in order, easy to find.  $MFT is the card catalog.


Edited by MrJinje, 15 October 2013 - 04:10 AM.


#9
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,675 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

@MrJinje

Well, searches (at least on NTFS) should be almost instantaneous (of course not with Windows Search).

 

JFYI (if you haven't seen Ultradefrag and JKdefrag before it is unlikely that you know about this relatively new kid on the block :thumbup: , Swiftsearch):

http://reboot.pro/to...y-that-is-fast/

http://sourceforge.n...ts/swiftsearch/

 

I am pretty sure that you can appreciate the differences between the "standard" defrag and a more advanced tool :), what I was saying was that once "beyond" the "standard" defrag, the comparisons between the various more advanced tools (particularly those where file placement strategy can be chosen/programmed) is not easy at all.

 

jaclaz


Edited by jaclaz, 15 October 2013 - 08:13 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users