[jftuga]

Jeremy, on Nov 9 2006, 12:44 AM, said:

I cannot be bothered to manually defrag my files. I would rather have DK manage my files in the background at no expense to my overall system performance than to have PD defrag them nicely during one session, let them fragment in 24 hours or two weeks (as users are frequently doing various tasks which result in varying levels of I/O (Read/Writes) then defragment them again.

PD8 has a feature called 'AutoPilot Schedule' and is similar to Scheduled Tasks. Now, we only run PD8 on our servers which run 24/7 so we just schedule a defrag on the weekends and twice during week nights. I guess this is not practical for desktop systems, however.

-John

[Jeremy]

jftuga, on Nov 9 2006, 05:11 PM, said:

I guess this is not practical for desktop systems, however.

John, it's not impractical at all. It's just that Diskeeper eliminates the need for scheduling altogether. As Jcarle stated, you need not worry about anything. Besides that, I am still trying to determine which method of defragmentation is best for harddrives. I have asked this on the thread at DriverHeaven and hope Raxco's representative's will do the right thing by explaining.

[jaclaz]

Well, I guess that a real "scientifically" sound comparison test would be needed, user "feeling" may not be a valid parameter

IMHO disk fragmentation tends to be smaller lately, mainly for two reasons, superior NTFS capabilities in handling files:
http://www.pcguide.c.../relFrag-c.html
and average single file bigger size.

Thus defragging a hard disk often is not as imperative as it used to be.

However, there are also many freeware/low cost alternatives, I'll list those I know of:
http://www.dirms.com/
(Dirms and buzzsaw, defraggers)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysintern...ies/Contig.mspx
(single file defragmenter)
http://www.excessive-software.eu.tt/
(GUI for Contig)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysintern...PageDefrag.mspx
(pagefile defragmenter)
http://www.vcsoftwar...SpeeDefrag.html
(another approach to speed up standard defrag)
http://www.auslogics...efrag/index.php
(defragger)
http://defragmentor....lcl/en/home.asp
(CL file defragger)
http://www.flexomizer.com/PermaLink,guid,c...2145cc1957.aspx
(defragger)
http://www.kessels.c...frag/index.html
(defragger)
http://www.iobit.com...frag/index.html
(defragger)
http://free.pages.at...ls/toolsen.html
(defragger)

Some other similar or related tools:
http://www.unitypro....leoptimizer.htm
(not a defragmenter, but nonetheless useful)
http://www.larsheder...nline.de/erunt/
(Registry defragger)
http://www.registry-...stry-defrag.htm
(Registry defragger)
http://www.download.com/WinASO-RegDefrag/3...&tag=button
(Registry defragger)
(Registry defragger)

Of the "Commercial" ones, I have found very good opinions on the somewhat less known MST one:
http://www.mstsoftwa...rag_we_mx2.aspx
(but never had an occasion to test it)

jaclaz

[jcarle]

jaclaz, on Nov 10 2006, 08:07 AM, said:

Thus defragging a hard disk often is not as imperative as it used to be.

That is the worst piece of misinformation I have ever heard. With the average computer racking up hundreds of thousands of files, what you're saying is ridiculous. If anything, there is a bigger need for intelligent defragmentation software now then there ever was.

[jimmsta]

TheFlash428, on Nov 2 2006, 10:45 AM, said:

PerfectDisk is pretty nice, but it's not free.

Raxco PerfectDisk

Lots of great features and it's certified by Microsoft.

I bought a lifetime license to PerfectDisk.

I have used Diskeeper for years, and though it was doing a good job... However, when I would do cpu-intensive things, it would engage its defrag engine, and start chugging away, even if I was in the middle of doing something. PerfectDisk does not do this. It waits until there's been about 10 minutes of inactive use on the system before attempting to engage its defrag engine.

For a freebie, I use PowerDefragmenter GUI + Sysinternal's Contig, which defrags files individually, then runs the Windows Defrag engine to move contiguous blocks around the drive.

Download: http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Hard-D...ragmenter.shtml
Contig: http://download.sysi...iles/Contig.zip (New link through Microsoft's site)

jcarle, on Nov 10 2006, 01:06 PM, said:

jaclaz, on Nov 10 2006, 08:07 AM, said:

Thus defragging a hard disk often is not as imperative as it used to be.

That is the worst piece of misinformation I have ever heard. With the average computer racking up hundreds of thousands of files, what you're saying is ridiculous. If anything, there is a bigger need for intelligent defragmentation software now then there ever was.

I keep hearing this crap from other techs around me... I've done tests, and I can honestly say that NTFS still gets fragmented, and this causes the hard drive to seek more in order to complete file operations. I still believe that defragmentation is a requirement for all filesystems. Hell, even ext3 and reiserfs have defrag programs out in the wild. There's bound to always be some sort of fragmentation, and it DOES slow your system down... Especially when you have a bunch of games on your drives...

This post has been edited by Zxian: 10 November 2006 - 04:03 PM

[Jeremy]

jimmsta, on Nov 10 2006, 01:17 PM, said:

I have used Diskeeper for years, and though it was doing a good job... However, when I would do cpu-intensive things, it would engage its defrag engine, and start chugging away, even if I was in the middle of doing something. PerfectDisk does not do this. It waits until there's been about 10 minutes of inactive use on the system before attempting to engage its defrag engine.

DK2007 is revolutionary compared to DK10.

[mindtrick]

Thank you Jeremy, I read your post about DK2007 and gave it a try. It's awesome so far

[jcarle]

Jeremy, on Nov 10 2006, 01:44 PM, said:

jimmsta, on Nov 10 2006, 01:17 PM, said:

I have used Diskeeper for years, and though it was doing a good job... However, when I would do cpu-intensive things, it would engage its defrag engine, and start chugging away, even if I was in the middle of doing something. PerfectDisk does not do this. It waits until there's been about 10 minutes of inactive use on the system before attempting to engage its defrag engine.

DK2007 is revolutionary compared to DK10.

Just to add... yes, that behaviour was annoying with DK10, but that HAS been fixed with InvisiTask in DK2007.

[jaclaz]

Well, English is such a difficult language, as I read (and write) it the sentence:

Quote

Thus defragging a hard disk often is not as imperative as it used to be.

is a "comparative sentence", rather than an "opinion sentence", reference:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1148...CFTOKEN=6184618

Quote

An example opinion sentence is "the sound quality of CD player X is poor". An example comparative sentence is "the sound quality of CD player X is not as good as that of CD player Y". Clearly, these two sentences give different information. Their language constructs are quite different too.

The above is a comparation between:
a previous common situation (FAT16 with large cluster size and OS with hundreds of very small files)
and a common current situation (NTFS with 512 byte cluster size and OS with smaller number of files relatively big)

that does not mean that there is no need for defragmentation, nor that having a good (or better)defragmenter is a bad thing, only that there is less need to defragment as often as it was necessary with other OS and filesystems, or to be even more exact that it is less imperative to do it, intended as meaning #4 here:
http://www.bartleby....3/I0056300.html

And of course this applies to average use of the PC, it is quite obvious that a PC used as Web server has different needs than a gaming station or than an Internet Cafè PC.

jaclaz

[jcarle]

jaclaz, on Nov 10 2006, 06:40 PM, said:

Well, English is such a difficult language, as I read (and write) it the sentence:

Quote

Thus defragging a hard disk often is not as imperative as it used to be.

is a "comparative sentence", rather than an "opinion sentence", reference:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1148...CFTOKEN=6184618

Quote

An example opinion sentence is "the sound quality of CD player X is poor". An example comparative sentence is "the sound quality of CD player X is not as good as that of CD player Y". Clearly, these two sentences give different information. Their language constructs are quite different too.

The above is a comparation between:
a previous common situation (FAT16 with large cluster size and OS with hundreds of very small files)
and a common current situation (NTFS with 512 byte cluster size and OS with smaller number of files relatively big)

that does not mean that there is no need for defragmentation, nor that having a good (or better)defragmenter is a bad thing, only that there is less need to defragment as often as it was necessary with other OS and filesystems, or to be even more exact that it is less imperative to do it, intended as meaning #4 here:
http://www.bartleby....3/I0056300.html

And of course this applies to average use of the PC, it is quite obvious that a PC used as Web server has different needs than a gaming station or than an Internet Cafè PC.

jaclaz

You're still wrong. The shear quantity of files on a modern computer make your argument moot. The need for defragmentation now is bigger then it has ever been despite any improvements brought upon by NTFS.

[jaclaz]

jcarle said:

You're still wrong. The shear quantity of files on a modern computer make your argument moot. The need for defragmentation now is bigger then it has ever been despite any improvements brought upon by NTFS.

Yep, I may be wrong, this is why I used the IMHO form in my statement, but while this me being wrong is a concrete possibility, it is not proved by your unpolite attack on it, nor because you say so.

jaclaz

[jcarle]

jaclaz, on Nov 10 2006, 07:00 PM, said:

jcarle said:

You're still wrong. The shear quantity of files on a modern computer make your argument moot. The need for defragmentation now is bigger then it has ever been despite any improvements brought upon by NTFS.

Yep, I may be wrong, this is why I used the IMHO form in my statement, but while this me being wrong is a concrete possibility, it is not proved by your unpolite attack on it, nor because you say so.

jaclaz

You'll find that when I'm unpolite, I'm much more direct. Trust me.

[jaclaz]

jcarle said:

Trust me.

Yep, you pinned down the missing pre-requisite, I would love to, if only you could, possibly in a civil manner, bring some supporting evidence to your statements.

Until then, I see them as a mere opininon, in this particular case expressed with a lack of politeness that I find offensive.

To cite Bertrand Russell:

Quote

"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.”

Of course, my personal view on politeness may differ from yours, and I see as highly advisable to end this little dispute without further exploring the capabilities in this field you so clearly advertised in your last post.

Be well.

jaclaz

[Jeremy]

Guys, let's keep this cool, please?
You don't need evidence to know that the need to defragment drives is greater than ever before, you only need common sense. More and more people are downloading archives, movies, albums. More people are using video editing software, trying to bring massive systems to their knees, more and more Read/Writes! With more of this happening, defragmenting needs to be done more often (constantly) to keep drives at their peek peformance. Diskeeper 2007 does this without needing you to do anything.

[Lost Soul]

i for one support disk keeper and always will, i feel right now there is no substitute,, but each to there own m8's

[rms]

Jeremy, on Nov 11 2006, 09:12 PM, said:

You don't need evidence to know that the need to defragment drives is greater than ever before, you only need common sense. More and more people are downloading archives, movies, albums. More people are using video editing software, trying to bring massive systems to their knees, more and more Read/Writes! With more of this happening, defragmenting needs to be done more often (constantly) to keep drives at their peek peformance. Diskeeper 2007 does this without needing you to do anything.

Common sense is of course a good thing, if it is not affected by defrag software vendors advertising.
What about disk drives ever advancing caching algorithms and growing cache size, which reduce some effects caused by fragmentation? What about NCQ, which addresses other effects of fragmentation and does it quite effectively?

Of course, it does not eliminate the need to defragment drives, but to say that this need is greater than ever before, is a bit of loud statement, which may need some clarification, or, indeed, evidence.

And, what about improvements in Windows system tools, like - built-in defragmenter now optimizes layout.ini files every time manual defragmentaion pass is run? Quite funnily, this fact is "unknown" to experts like Raxco technical suport, and Diskeeper is not advertising it either.

On the other hand, common sense should tell us that there are no "invisible" services, even if they may be named named like "InvisiTasking".
It may be difficult to demonstrate the adverse effect of those "invisible" things on the normal home computer (the same way it is nearly impossible to prove the advantage of third-party defrag tools over built-in defragmenter on such computer - except that lazy user doesn't need to press the button once a week), but it is quite easy to show it on the audio workstation. There you can reduce latency from about 256 samples to something like 64 samples, simply by turning off those "invisible " things.

Finally, but this of course applies only if we are really considering paying $100 for defrag software - for that money one can seriously upgrade system and enjoy real perfomance gain, not one based mostly on placebo effect.

[jcarle]

rms, on Nov 15 2006, 10:30 PM, said:

Common sense is of course a good thing, if it is not affected by defrag software vendors advertising.

Advertising has nothing to do with it considering this thread is about user experiences with their own favorite defragmentation utilities. I see no marketing tools being used anywhere in this thread.

rms, on Nov 15 2006, 10:30 PM, said:

What about disk drives ever advancing caching algorithms and growing cache size, which reduce some effects caused by fragmentation?

Reduces but does not eliminate.

rms, on Nov 15 2006, 10:30 PM, said:

What about NCQ, which addresses other effects of fragmentation and does it quite effectively?

Native Command Queueing has nothing to do with disk fragmentation, does nothing to help prevent it and does nothing to reduce the effects of disk fragmentation.

rms, on Nov 15 2006, 10:30 PM, said:

Of course, it does not eliminate the need to defragment drives, but to say that this need is greater than ever before, is a bit of loud statement, which may need some clarification, or, indeed, evidence.

The evidence has already been brought fourth, a simple count of the number of files on a typical modern computer is more then enough evidence in itself to justify defragmentation. Considering that 8GB hard drive were landmarks less then 6 or 7 years ago, 320+GB hard drives filled to the brim with thousands of files are in much greater need of defragmentation then a mear couple hundred files that used to fill computers.

rms, on Nov 15 2006, 10:30 PM, said:

And, what about improvements in Windows system tools, like - built-in defragmenter now optimizes layout.ini files every time manual defragmentaion pass is run? Quite funnily, this fact is "unknown" to experts like Raxco technical suport, and Diskeeper is not advertising it either.

Well, it's unknown to them surely because it has nothing to do with disk defragmentation. The prefetcher has no corolation to disk fragmentation. And in fact, I quote from microsoft's own text regarding the prefetcher:

Quote

Disk Efficiency Optimizations
The physical placement, or layout, of files on the disk can have a considerable effect on performance, up to 10% for normal use. Windows XP observes file usage patterns as the system is used. If deemed necessary, Windows XP will adjust the file layout at three day intervals. By placing files that are referenced together near each other on the disk, and towards the more dense outer edge of the disk, seek distances are reduced which results in shorter seek times and improved performance. The performance benefit of placing files becomes increasing important as the size of the disk increases.

The files moved for more efficient layout are also kept contiguous. Windows XP does not intentionally fragment files as was done by some earlier versions of Windows.

Even though the disk layout optimization does insure some files will be defragmented, it is not a complete substitute for fully defragmenting the disk. Users should still defragment their drives regularly. The built-in Windows XP defragmentation program understands the file layout directives and will position the files if they arent already placed properly. However, it will not update the layout file with new information gathered in the last three days. Without manual intervention, the layout file, %windir%\Prefetch\Layout.ini, will only be updated once every three days. The contents of the Layout.ini file can be viewed with Notepad.

Source: http://www.microsoft.../benchmark.mspx

Do take special note of the phrase "Even though the disk layout optimization does insure some files will be defragmented, it is not a complete substitute for fully defragmenting the disk. Users should still defragment their drives regularly.".

rms, on Nov 15 2006, 10:30 PM, said:

On the other hand, common sense should tell us that there are no "invisible" services, even if they may be named named like "InvisiTasking".
It may be difficult to demonstrate the adverse effect of those "invisible" things on the normal home computer (the same way it is nearly impossible to prove the advantage of third-party defrag tools over built-in defragmenter on such computer - except that lazy user doesn't need to press the button once a week), but it is quite easy to show it on the audio workstation. There you can reduce latency from about 256 samples to something like 64 samples, simply by turning off those "invisible " things.

InvisiTasking does exactly what it says it does. It makes Diskeeper seem invisible in a perceptual sense. It retains it's work for period where the entire system is idle, and stops immediately whenever the system is no longer idle. Hence, giving the perception of not running.

rms, on Nov 15 2006, 10:30 PM, said:

Finally, but this of course applies only if we are really considering paying $100 for defrag software - for that money one can seriously upgrade system and enjoy real perfomance gain, not one based mostly on placebo effect.

Placebo effect? I believe you are seriously misinformed.

This post has been edited by jcarle: 15 November 2006 - 10:19 PM

[Jeremy]

@RMS, if you have a question about newer harddrives and how fragmentation affects them, I suggest you keep everything in one place by posting your curiosities on the DriverHeaven thread located here.

http://www.driverheaven.net/showthread.php...6565#post986565

And the Diskeeper Blog:
www.diskeeperblog.com

And the PerfectDisk Blog:
http://perfectdiskbl...rfectdisk_blog/

This post has been edited by Jeremy: 15 November 2006 - 11:43 PM

[rms]

jcarle, on Nov 16 2006, 12:18 PM, said:

Native Command Queueing has nothing to do with disk fragmentation, does nothing to help prevent it and does nothing to reduce the effects of disk fragmentation.

Quite a funny statement. Normally, you would need to learn the subject a bit, before making such.
But, what about common sense? It was declared present a while ago.
If file is fragmented, read commands will be issued that lead to random read head movements. If these commands are re-ordered to minimize head movements, how is it "nothing"?
Of course, it will happen only under certain conditions(ie. when there is a queue), but in many cases, especially when several files are accessed simultaneously, it can (and does) significantly reduce the effects of fragmentation.
And, this effect is quite measurable, it is possible to test it.

jcarle, on Nov 16 2006, 12:18 PM, said:

The evidence has already been brought fourth, a simple count of the number of files on a typical modern computer is more then enough evidence in itself to justify defragmentation. Considering that 8GB hard drive were landmarks less then 6 or 7 years ago, 320+GB hard drives filled to the brim with thousands of files are in much greater need of defragmentation then a mear couple hundred files that used to fill computers.

Not true. Simple count of files, or even count of file fragments is not evidence.
Couple hundred files is simply not true, and on those 8GB drives were much more sensitive to even slight fragmentation.
Evidence to justify defragmentation is degraded performance, if you can measure it on the real system. Plus, I didn't say defragmentation is not necessary, so it is difference between built-in defrag and miracle tool.

jcarle, on Nov 16 2006, 12:18 PM, said:

...it is not a complete substitute for fully defragmenting the disk. Users should still defragment their drives regularly.".

Well, that is probably exactly the reason why built-in defragmenter exists.

jcarle, on Nov 16 2006, 12:18 PM, said:

InvisiTasking does exactly what it says it does. It makes Diskeeper seem invisible in a perceptual sense. It retains it's work for period where the entire system is idle, and stops immediately whenever the system is no longer idle. Hence, giving the perception of not running.

Really? Well, it may be in the perceptual sense of somebody who would not benefit from defragmentation anyway.
But, on the audio workstation, it is possible to reproduce the following - Select large number of tracks, and when invisible defragmentation starts, hit play button and see what happens, to learn what is "immediately". Or, same with record.
Would be nice if they did that at their miracle works, but that doesn't bring any money, does it?

Finally, I didn't say those programs are bad. What I am saying is, for home user, they are not worth $100.
Probably, PerfectDisk is worth its $39.99 in many cases.

Jeremy, on Nov 16 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

@RMS, if you have a question about newer harddrives and how fragmentation affects them...

I can measure that, even without asking a question, and have already done it.
But you guys, who are trying to make innocent people believe they need to spend $100 on defrag, should ask some questions, indeed.

[jcarle]

rms, on Nov 16 2006, 06:18 AM, said:

Quite a funny statement. Normally, you would need to learn the subject a bit, before making such.
But, what about common sense? It was declared present a while ago.
If file is fragmented, read commands will be issued that lead to random read head movements. If these commands are re-ordered to minimize head movements, how is it "nothing"?
Of course, it will happen only under certain conditions(ie. when there is a queue), but in many cases, especially when several files are accessed simultaneously, it can (and does) significantly reduce the effects of fragmentation.
And, this effect is quite measurable, it is possible to test it.

Let's see... 2GB file with 150 fragments. No NCQ, 150 read commands. NCQ, 150 read commands. Where the difference? Sure, the NCQ may finish faster because of the ordering of it's fetch commands but that's analogous to comparing a 5,400rpm to a 7,200rpm hard drive. It simply does not address the problem, you're approaching the situation using a band-aid fix.

rms, on Nov 16 2006, 06:18 AM, said:

Not true. Simple count of files, or even count of file fragments is not evidence.
Couple hundred files is simply not true, and on those 8GB drives were much more sensitive to even slight fragmentation.
Evidence to justify defragmentation is degraded performance, if you can measure it on the real system. Plus, I didn't say defragmentation is not necessary, so it is difference between built-in defrag and miracle tool.

Compare the number of writes to hard drive back then to hard drives now, compare the amount of data stored, compare the quantity of changes, compare the quantity of files. It is self explanatory that exponentially speaking, defragmentation is more important now then it was then.

You can compare this to a village vs a city. In the village, sure if the one bridge breaks, it affects the village in much more drastic fashion then if one bridge breaks in a city. However, repaving a broken up road in the village for higher efficiency, smoother driving and faster traffic flow has a much smaller effect then doing the same thing in a city.

And you know, no one's claimed that diskeeper or perfect disk were miracle products. Microsoft cannot do everything perfect and they can't be number one in all aspects of every piece of software that exists in the world. If they were, people wouldn't use Winamp, they'd use Windows Media Player. They wouldn't use Vegas, they'd use Windows Movie Maker. They wouldn't use Photoshop, they'd use Microsoft Picture It!. And for the same reason, they wouldn't use a 3rd party defragmenter, they'd use the Windows Defragmenter. Microsoft's not perfect and some companies make a better product then window's own built-in applications.

rms, on Nov 16 2006, 06:18 AM, said:

Really? Well, it may be in the perceptual sense of somebody who would not benefit from defragmentation anyway.
But, on the audio workstation, it is possible to reproduce the following - Select large number of tracks, and when invisible defragmentation starts, hit play button and see what happens, to learn what is "immediately". Or, same with record.

There is no way to reproduce the exact conditions every single time and as such, no way to put the blame on diskeeper. Who's to say that your drive heads were not in different places? Or that another system process was executing a task? Or that the memory manager had decided to move memory to the page file?

rms, on Nov 16 2006, 06:18 AM, said:

Would be nice if they did that at their miracle works, but that doesn't bring any money, does it?

Finally, I didn't say those programs are bad. What I am saying is, for home user, they are not worth $100.
Probably, PerfectDisk is worth its $39.99 in many cases.

Again, no one quoted miracle workings. And your reasoning for the pricing is flawed. Why do some people use Photoshop when Paint Shop Pro is cheaper? Because photoshop does it better and for some home users, that's what they want.

rms, on Nov 16 2006, 06:18 AM, said:

I can measure that, even without asking a question, and have already done it.

I saw your tests. They're flawed in every possible sense. You proved absolutely nothing. All you proved was that there was almost no changes in all three scenarios. You did not replicate fragmentation in all three situations and you didn't even take any measure as to the level of fragmentation before you even attempted to prove the differences. Your data is useless, the tests a waste and the results a flop.

rms, on Nov 16 2006, 06:18 AM, said:

But you guys, who are trying to make innocent people believe they need to spend $100 on defrag, should ask some questions, indeed.

No one's tried to forcefeed anyone. Everyone's shared they experiences with each product and we've move to analyzing the differences between the two leading products, Diskeeper and Perfect Disk to figure out which one is more efficient and more effective. As the representative of diskeeper so elloquently put it. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

And finally, you keep quoting $100 for diskeeper. Yet, diskeeper 2007 home is listed at $29.95, $10 less then your quoted price for Perfect Disk. I see how you like to keep the comparisons fair.