Better defragmenter needed

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Can you recommend a better defragmenter than the one supplied with Windows
XP?

I'm using Drive Image to image two hard drives to a third one every night.
The images are split into 600MByte chunks so there are about 40 x 600MByte
files written every night. The drive is never more than about 60% full.

Problem is that after awhile the standard defragmenter seems to give up. It
recommends defragmenting but terminates after 1 second and reports many
"files that did not defragment". These are split into 200 or 300+ fragments.

Would it help to increase the size of the chunks to say 4GByte or reduce
them so more smaller files are created?
19 answers Last reply
More about better defragmenter needed
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    I use diskeeper 9, which is the newer version of the stripped down
    diskeeper that windows uses, and am very happy with it, but without
    testing it in your environment I can't say that it would work any
    better. Intuitively, smaller chunks would fragment less and should
    defragment better. Still, it is a lot of work on the drive to defrag
    all that stuff every night, like rewriting the entire drive. Any also,
    why do it? It's not like you work or boot off the drive, right? Is
    performance such an issue? There was a time I wanted to defrag my
    backup partitions, and then I decided not to because I couldn't figure
    out why I cared, other than being obsessive compulsive.

    Perhaps you would consider a different backup strategy? Why back up the
    entire drives every night? Why not do incremental backup with Ghost 9
    (do not like the product but it does do incremental) or a real backup
    program like Backup MyPC?

    IMF


    CWatters wrote:
    > Can you recommend a better defragmenter than the one supplied with
    Windows
    > XP?
    >
    > I'm using Drive Image to image two hard drives to a third one every
    night.
    > The images are split into 600MByte chunks so there are about 40 x
    600MByte
    > files written every night. The drive is never more than about 60%
    full.
    >
    > Problem is that after awhile the standard defragmenter seems to give
    up. It
    > recommends defragmenting but terminates after 1 second and reports
    many
    > "files that did not defragment". These are split into 200 or 300+
    fragments.
    >
    > Would it help to increase the size of the chunks to say 4GByte or
    reduce
    > them so more smaller files are created?
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Note that Diskeeper, and maybe the other programs, but definitely
    diskeeper does not fully consolidate free space by default. Default is
    to go fast (performance mode), you have to manually choose to fully
    defrag free space which of course takes longer. Don't know about the
    other programs, you can tell us about PerfectDisk.

    IMF


    Al Dykes wrote:
    > In article <cOSFd.30783$kO3.2364467@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
    > CWatters <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
    > >
    > >"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
    > >news:cs8nhb$kuf$1@panix5.panix.com...
    > >
    > >> Perfectdisk by raxco.com
    > >
    > >Thanks. I downloaded the trial and set it to work.
    > >
    > >It reported that the largest free space was 513MBytes despite there
    being
    > >about 80GByte free. Since I only ever write 600MByte files to this
    drive no
    > >wonder it badly fragments. It seems the WinXP defragmenter isn't
    > >consolidating free space well enough.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Look at the list of fragmented files. Sometimes you'll find something

    > suprising there.
    >
    > If the eval-version will let you, try the offline (aka reboot) defrag
    > operation. It might aggregate a couple chunks of a file that can't
    be
    > moved in normal operation and increase your largest free space size.
    > YOu only have to do this once, IME.
    >
    > The Microsoft defrag is fine for end users that run office and
    outlook
    > and browse the web.
    >
    > --
    >
    > a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
    >
    > Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In article <aIMFd.30439$mx.2758718@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
    CWatters <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
    >Can you recommend a better defragmenter than the one supplied with Windows
    >XP?
    >
    >I'm using Drive Image to image two hard drives to a third one every night.
    >The images are split into 600MByte chunks so there are about 40 x 600MByte
    >files written every night. The drive is never more than about 60% full.
    >
    >Problem is that after awhile the standard defragmenter seems to give up. It
    >recommends defragmenting but terminates after 1 second and reports many
    >"files that did not defragment". These are split into 200 or 300+ fragments.
    >
    >Would it help to increase the size of the chunks to say 4GByte or reduce
    >them so more smaller files are created?
    >
    >

    Perfectdisk by raxco.com


    (no relationship....)

    --

    a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

    Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Peter makes a good point. I have two backup partitions, just split the
    drive in half. I fill one, then the other. When the second is full, I
    reformat the first and fill it, etc. Keeps fragmentation low.

    IMF
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    I have never used PerfectDisk, but when I was considering it I noted
    that it emphasized that it optimized the drive by putting all the files
    in their proper order and location on the drive. Norton's old Speed
    Disk did the same thing. That may be why it is taking so long. It is
    basically sorting and rewriting your entire hard drive. And that is
    totally unnecessary for what you want. The next defrag may be shorter,
    maybe not. I would either not use it or tell it to not sort the files
    (not sure if you even can tell it that).

    Irwin
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    I have never used PerfectDisk, but when I was considering it I noted
    that it emphasized that it optimized the drive by putting all the files
    in their proper order and location on the drive. Norton's old Speed
    Disk did the same thing. That may be why it is taking so long. It is
    basically sorting and rewriting your entire hard drive. And that is
    totally unnecessary for what you want. The next defrag may be shorter,
    maybe not. I would either not use it or tell it to not sort the files
    (not sure if you even can tell it that).

    Irwin
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Does your third drive (holding those 600MB backup image chunks) has any
    other files on it?
    You might review your backup strategy. Delete old backup files - defragment
    disk - put new backup files. That should keep them unfragmented.

    "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
    news:aIMFd.30439$mx.2758718@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
    > Can you recommend a better defragmenter than the one supplied with Windows
    > XP?
    >
    > I'm using Drive Image to image two hard drives to a third one every night.
    > The images are split into 600MByte chunks so there are about 40 x 600MByte
    > files written every night. The drive is never more than about 60% full.
    >
    > Problem is that after awhile the standard defragmenter seems to give up.
    It
    > recommends defragmenting but terminates after 1 second and reports many
    > "files that did not defragment". These are split into 200 or 300+
    fragments.
    >
    > Would it help to increase the size of the chunks to say 4GByte or reduce
    > them so more smaller files are created?
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Irwin" <ebct@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1105704018.142376.73380@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > I use diskeeper 9, which is the newer version of the stripped down
    > diskeeper that windows uses, and am very happy with it, but without
    > testing it in your environment I can't say that it would work any
    > better. Intuitively, smaller chunks would fragment less and should
    > defragment better. Still, it is a lot of work on the drive to defrag
    > all that stuff every night,

    Sorry I didn't mean I defrag every night! I just write a lot of data
    everynight.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
    news:cs8nhb$kuf$1@panix5.panix.com...

    > Perfectdisk by raxco.com

    Thanks. I downloaded the trial and set it to work.

    It reported that the largest free space was 513MBytes despite there being
    about 80GByte free. Since I only ever write 600MByte files to this drive no
    wonder it badly fragments. It seems the WinXP defragmenter isn't
    consolidating free space well enough.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In article <cOSFd.30783$kO3.2364467@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
    CWatters <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
    >
    >"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
    >news:cs8nhb$kuf$1@panix5.panix.com...
    >
    >> Perfectdisk by raxco.com
    >
    >Thanks. I downloaded the trial and set it to work.
    >
    >It reported that the largest free space was 513MBytes despite there being
    >about 80GByte free. Since I only ever write 600MByte files to this drive no
    >wonder it badly fragments. It seems the WinXP defragmenter isn't
    >consolidating free space well enough.
    >
    >

    Look at the list of fragmented files. Sometimes you'll find something
    suprising there.

    If the eval-version will let you, try the offline (aka reboot) defrag
    operation. It might aggregate a couple chunks of a file that can't be
    moved in normal operation and increase your largest free space size.
    YOu only have to do this once, IME.

    The Microsoft defrag is fine for end users that run office and outlook
    and browse the web.

    --

    a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

    Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    news:34qhn3F482b97U1@individual.net...
    > Does your third drive (holding those 600MB backup image chunks) has any
    > other files on it?

    Mostly just the 600M chunks although an image is never exactly a multiple of
    600M so there is always 1 file that varies in size. I guess I'm surprised
    that the fragmentation is so bad given that most of the files deleted are
    600M and most of the new ones created are also 600M.

    > You might review your backup strategy. Delete old backup files -
    defragment
    > disk - put new backup files. That should keep them unfragmented.

    I've set up DriveImage to only keep a few previous images - that
    automatically delete the old ones so the drive never fills up.

    Colin
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Irwin" <ebct@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1105727868.269023.199960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > Peter makes a good point. I have two backup partitions, just split the
    > drive in half. I fill one, then the other. When the second is full, I
    > reformat the first and fill it, etc. Keeps fragmentation low.

    Hey that sounds like an interesting idea.

    I'll see what happens when PerfectDisk finishes. It's been going several
    hours now and is about 45% done.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In article <cs8nhb$kuf$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com says...
    > In article <aIMFd.30439$mx.2758718@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
    > CWatters <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
    > >Can you recommend a better defragmenter than the one supplied with Windows
    > >XP?
    > >
    > >I'm using Drive Image to image two hard drives to a third one every night.
    > >The images are split into 600MByte chunks so there are about 40 x 600MByte
    > >files written every night. The drive is never more than about 60% full.
    > >
    > >Problem is that after awhile the standard defragmenter seems to give up. It
    > >recommends defragmenting but terminates after 1 second and reports many
    > >"files that did not defragment". These are split into 200 or 300+ fragments.
    > >
    > >Would it help to increase the size of the chunks to say 4GByte or reduce
    > >them so more smaller files are created?
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Perfectdisk by raxco.com
    >
    >
    > (no relationship....)
    >
    >
    I had a terrible experience with PerfectDisk. After several years of
    using Diskeeper, I decided to try PerfectDisk instead of upgrading
    diskeeper.

    I allowed PerfectDisk to place my files where it though best for quick
    booting etc. After that, my whole computer was terribly slow until I
    took it off, bought the new Diskeeper and defragmented with Diskeeper.

    I don't know whether this is the program, or so interaction with my
    configuration, but I was really distressed by the deterioration it
    seemed to have caused.

    Louise
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Irwin" <ebct@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1105736363.265894.169630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > I have never used PerfectDisk, but when I was considering it I noted
    > that it emphasized that it optimized the drive by putting all the files
    > in their proper order and location on the drive. Norton's old Speed
    > Disk did the same thing. That may be why it is taking so long. It is
    > basically sorting and rewriting your entire hard drive. And that is
    > totally unnecessary for what you want. The next defrag may be shorter,
    > maybe not. I would either not use it or tell it to not sort the files
    > (not sure if you even can tell it that).

    No it appears not. It appears to only have two modes. One mode doesn't merge
    free space together (which is the bit I need). The other mode does merge
    free space but also optimises placement. I can live with the latter by
    modifying the setting that determines what the definition of a frequently
    accessed file is. None of my files on this drive are older than a month.

    I seems to have done a good job. Only two files still fragmented and they
    are only in two parts. Before I had about numerous files with hundreds of
    fragments.

    Now to cure my other problem with Drive Image.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
    news:aIMFd.30439$mx.2758718@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
    > Can you recommend a better defragmenter than the one supplied with Windows
    > XP?
    >
    > I'm using Drive Image to image two hard drives to a third one every night.
    > The images are split into 600MByte chunks so there are about 40 x 600MByte
    > files written every night. The drive is never more than about 60% full.

    Am assuming you're splitting the image files for backup to CD. If you're
    not, don't split em.

    >
    > Problem is that after awhile the standard defragmenter seems to give up.
    It
    > recommends defragmenting but terminates after 1 second and reports many
    > "files that did not defragment". These are split into 200 or 300+
    fragments.

    Is this all the drives, one drive in particular, or what?

    Don't defragment your target drive for the image files.

    >
    > Would it help to increase the size of the chunks to say 4GByte or reduce
    > them so more smaller files are created?
    >

    The standard 4K cluster size is not a problem for NTFS. FAT32 cluster
    default size depends on partition capacity.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
    news:kb7Gd.7175$C52.5849@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
    > news:aIMFd.30439$mx.2758718@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

    >
    > Am assuming you're splitting the image files for backup to CD. If you're
    > not, don't split em.

    Yes I figured if I choose 600MBytes I could move them to CD or DVD later if
    necessary.

    > Is this all the drives, one drive in particular, or what?

    Just the external USB drive I'm using as the destination for the backup.

    > Don't defragment your target drive for the image files.

    Why not?

    > > Would it help to increase the size of the chunks to say 4GByte or reduce
    > > them so more smaller files are created?
    >
    > The standard 4K cluster size is not a problem for NTFS. FAT32 cluster
    > default size depends on partition capacity.

    No I mean 4GByte splits not clusters (eg 600M allows either CD or DVD.
    4GByte allows use of DVD only).
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
    news:u0cGd.31792$YW1.2860135@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
    >
    > "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
    > news:kb7Gd.7175$C52.5849@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > > "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
    > > news:aIMFd.30439$mx.2758718@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
    >
    > >
    > > Am assuming you're splitting the image files for backup to CD. If
    you're
    > > not, don't split em.
    >
    > Yes I figured if I choose 600MBytes I could move them to CD or DVD later
    if
    > necessary.
    >
    > > Is this all the drives, one drive in particular, or what?
    >
    > Just the external USB drive I'm using as the destination for the backup.
    >
    > > Don't defragment your target drive for the image files.
    >
    > Why not?
    >
    > > > Would it help to increase the size of the chunks to say 4GByte or
    reduce
    > > > them so more smaller files are created?
    > >
    > > The standard 4K cluster size is not a problem for NTFS. FAT32 cluster
    > > default size depends on partition capacity.
    >
    > No I mean 4GByte splits not clusters (eg 600M allows either CD or DVD.
    > 4GByte allows use of DVD only).

    You've removed critical information from the original post. Therefore, my
    reply would suffer lack of information as basis that you removed.. However,
    I will say that you're playing games that you seem to already know the
    answers to.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
    news:mPqGd.503$Rs.150@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    ,
    > I will say that you're playing games that you seem to already know the
    > answers to.

    Well I do _now_
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    CWatters <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> writes
    >Can you recommend a better defragmenter than the one supplied with Windows
    >XP?


    Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional Service Pack 4
    (plus all the latest updates)

    AMD Athlon 900MHz

    Installed Memory: 512MB SDRAM

    Hard Disc: Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 60 (5T030H3)
    Hard Disk (C:): 9.8GB (4.7GB, 47% Free) (NTFS)
    Hard Disk (G:): 9.8GB (3.2GB, 32% Free) (NTFS)
    Hard Disk (H:): 9.0GB (1.9GB, 22% Free) (NTFS)


    I have just stared to look at defrag programs.

    I am evaluation O&O Defrag and Diskeeper.

    O&O has 5 different options, it can be set to optimise for space access
    speed etc.

    Diskeeper can run in the background.

    They both seem to work OK and my system seems to feel 'faster' but
    that's not a very scientific measurement, but it will do for me.
Ask a new question

Read More

Storage