Which defrag?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Personally i prefer Perfectdisk

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.freelanceit/index.htm
http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org

"jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Hello all,
>
> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get
> a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

In news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net,
jt <jt@jt.jt> typed:

> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or
> should
> I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?


I think Perfect Disk is the best product available, but the
native defragger works too. Whether it's worth spending money for
an improved product, you have to decide for yourself.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

jt wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag
> adequate or should I get a better one? Which is
> better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>
I never defrag. If you have a reasonably large hard disk,
there is little real advantage in defragging a disk. In
addition it exercises the disk which theoretically reduces
its life.

If you have a small disk, degragging is not an efficient
process anyway.

I certainly wouldn't pay money for a defragger.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

I prefer Diskeeper 9. Try the native defragger and then try a trial version
of any of the third party programs. The 30-day trial for Diskeeper9 is at:
http://consumer.execsoft.com/downl [...] a=l&PId=95


--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Hello all,
>
> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get
> a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:23:30 -0700, "Colin Barnhorst"
<colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote:

>I prefer Diskeeper 9. Try the native defragger and then try a trial version
>of any of the third party programs. The 30-day trial for Diskeeper9 is at:
>http://consumer.execsoft.com/downloads/downloads.asp?a=l&PId=95
I maintain a 9GB fat32 partition, and I've always found DK to be
incredibly slow thrashing around trying to defrag this partition.
DK has a real problem with FAT. On the other hand, it's great for
NTFS.

I'm trialling Perfectdisk at the moment, it can defrag the folders
on Fat32 and can optimize the mft and metadata on NTFS.
I think these are the mian advantages.
I'm a little dubious of it's "smart placement". Perfectdisk works
better that DK (faster) on Fat32.

Dave

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> You should look at some studies on the effects of fragmentation:
> http://www1.execsoft.com/pdf/Diskeeper_Evaluation.pdf
>
Hmm, do the words "vested interest" mean anything to you? I
notice that they are very careful to leave out any mention
of disk caching, paging, running from memory and all the
other things that are done today to speed up applications.

If an application does a read, process, write, read,
process, write cycle all the time there might be benefits
from defragging. Typical applications don't do that.

Only if an application is heavily I/O bound is there any
benefit from careful placement of files on disks. The only
real-world example I can think of is backup and from my
tests the benefits were only a few percent.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Diskeeper 9 Pro does all of the functions you mention. I gave up on FAT32
two years ago. It is just not as self-healing as NTFS and it is too slow on
partitions over 32mb. Take a look at the options for Diskeeper Pro's
boot-time defrag. Also take a look at the Performance Map tab. It is a
mapping of not only fragmentation, but which fragmentation actually makes a
difference to performance and by how much.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"da_test" <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:265f41h9b51dc6avfr4o6j98f0m5gao0te@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:23:30 -0700, "Colin Barnhorst"
> <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>I prefer Diskeeper 9. Try the native defragger and then try a trial
>>version
>>of any of the third party programs. The 30-day trial for Diskeeper9 is
>>at:
>>http://consumer.execsoft.com/downloads/downloads.asp?a=l&PId=95
> I maintain a 9GB fat32 partition, and I've always found DK to be
> incredibly slow thrashing around trying to defrag this partition.
> DK has a real problem with FAT. On the other hand, it's great for
> NTFS.
>
> I'm trialling Perfectdisk at the moment, it can defrag the folders
> on Fat32 and can optimize the mft and metadata on NTFS.
> I think these are the mian advantages.
> I'm a little dubious of it's "smart placement". Perfectdisk works
> better that DK (faster) on Fat32.
>
> Dave

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

You're kidding??? Why don't you try it and you'll change your mind.
"Enkidu" <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
news:42476701@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
> jt wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag
> > adequate or should I get a better one? Which is
> > better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>>
> I never defrag. If you have a reasonably large hard disk, there is little
> real advantage in defragging a disk. In addition it exercises the disk which
> theoretically reduces its life.
>
> If you have a small disk, degragging is not an efficient process anyway.
>
> I certainly wouldn't pay money for a defragger.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
>
> --
>
> Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"jt" wrote:

> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get a
> better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?

That depends on why you think that the third party solutions are better than
the native defrag. In my mind, there are only three serious contenders for
this function: the native defragger, PerfectDisk, or Diskeeper. But which
one of these three is the best solution depends pretty much on what you need.


The native defragger will defrag your drive, but you have to do it manually
and you can only defrag one drive at a time. Also, it won't defrag your
pagefile, although the pagefile rarely should become fragmented anyway and if
it does, there is an easy workaround to get it defragmented again by other
means.

Diskeeper is the full-featured version of the built-in defragger (which
itself is licensed from the same software company that makes Diskeeper).
Diskeeper can defragment the page file, but much more important, it can also
defragment automatically in the background on a schedule, and it can even
determine automatically (without your intervention) how often it should
actually defragment (anywhere from one hour to one week, depending on how
quickly your drive tends to refragment between sessions). It calls this
feature "set it and forget it," which is exactly what it enables you to do.

PerfectDisk uses a totally different defragmentation strategy from the
built-in defragger or Diskeeper. It focuses on placing files so that the
least modified files are placed at the beginning of the disk. It also
focuses much more heavily on free space consolidation. Raxco, the maker of
PerfectDisk, claims that this approach results in faster subsequent
fragmentation runs and less fragmentation of newly created files.
PerfectDisk defrags can be scheduled to run in the background, but unlike
Diskeeper you must set the schedule manually.

I have extensively used all three, and in terms of overall performance I
cannot notice any transparent difference in how quickly they read and write
files on the hard drive (which is the purpose of defragmentation in the first
place). The biggest difference is that I have to run the built-in defragger
manually, while the other two can be scheduled to run automatically. Of the
three, only Diskeeper provides a method for measuring any performance gains
you might get after a defrag, but that's different from saying that the gains
you will get will be any greater than the ones you would get with the other
two programs. It does seem, however, that a drive defragmented with
PerfectDisk refragments at a slightly slower rate than the other two programs
-- but Diskeeper will usually defragment it sooner.

In the end, here is what I would suggest, although I won't get into the
technical reasons. If you have a new computer with lots of RAM and you don't
reboot it every day (e.g. you constantly leave it on, or you merely log out
but without rebooting the computer), you are probably best off using the
built-in defragger. If neither applies to you, you don't want even a little
defragmentation, and you don't want to mess with when or how often you should
defragment, use Diskeeper with "set it and forget it" enabled. If you want
to be slightly more proactive and also if free space consolidation is
especially important to you (e.g. you don't have a huge hard drive, or you
have lots of large files such as images and multimedia, then PerfectDisk may
be your best bet.

Ken

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"da_test" wrote:

> I'm a little dubious of it's "smart placement". Perfectdisk works
> better that DK (faster) on Fat32.

I am, too. In particular, PerfectDisk moves the MFT file to about 1/3
inside the drive. When I asked them about this, they referred me to a
Microsoft Knowledge Base Article that suggested that this placement optimized
performance. I read the actual article, and it actually said 3-5 GB inside
the drive, not 1/3 inside the drive. The difference between 3-5 GB and 1/3
inside the drive is huge, especially if you have a very large HD, as I do
(250 GB).

I also asked them about whether placing least modified files at the
beginning of the drive made sense from a performance standpoint, other than
the point that this setup minimizes refragmentation. I no longer remember
the exact explanation I received, but I do remember it making good sense at
the time. In any event, any performance drop by putting, say, an old but
very large music file closer to the outisde of the disk will probably be too
small to notice anyway. Even so, I like the way the native defragger puts
these behemoth files in a separate part of the drive from smaller files.
[Note: I think Diskeeper will also move these huge files closer to the
outside of the drive, while the native defragger leaves them further away.
In this regard, if I get a choice, I prefer the behavior of the native
defragger.]

Incidentally, I have found that both Raxco (PerfectDisk) and Executive
Software (Diskeeper) have excellent customer service and technical support.
One can learn all sorts of cool stuff about hard drives and fragmentation by
e-mailing them questions.

Ken

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Greg Hayes/Raxco Software, <ghayes@raxco.com>, the near-blind, odourless gas
bomb, and person who makes a living selling tannery remnants, squawked:


> Delete ntloader.

If you insist.

ghayes@raxco.com
ghayes@raxco.com
ghayes@raxco.com
ghayes@raxco.com
ghayes@raxco.com
ghayes@raxco.com
ghayes@raxco.com
ghayes@raxco.com
ghayes@raxco.com
ghayes@raxco.com
ghayes@raxco.com
ghayes@raxco.com
ghayes@raxco.com
ghayes@raxco.com

--
http://www.nice-tits.org/pics.html

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
news:3nV1e.12057$ZB6.9840@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> The native defrag program is more than adequate. What more do you
> want/need?

I dunno, because as I indicated I am a new user and know next to nothing
about xp or NTFS systems. Therefore, I asked. Thanks for your input.

> "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
> news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> Hello all,
>>
>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I
>> get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

> [Sorry. This message is no longer available.]

Why?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

jt wrote:
> "relic" <abuse@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
> news:aTI1e.193$e06.28@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> jt wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should
>>> I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>>
>> 1. VoptXP.
>> 2. Disk Keeper.
>>>
>>>
>> 473. PerfectDisk
>>>
>>>
>> 943. XP'x Built-in Defragger.
>>>
>>>
>> 2,789. O&O.
>>
> Is there a reason you rank O&O so low? A friend recommended it to
> me, and as I know next to nothing about commercial defraggers, I am
> simply curious.

It seem to get good comments from users, but I've never used/tried any piece
of software that ran as slow. I'm old enough to be retired, and I was
honestly afraid that I would die before it finished... I finally aborted it.
The biggest reason I rated VoptXP tops is its speed.

--
If there is a Tourist Season, how come we can't shoot them?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

I have used two, Diskeeper and Norton's Speed Disk which use to come
with Norton's Utilities. I stayed with Speed Disk because it does
something that Diskeeper doesn't... during defragging, it fills up
all the empty spaces left which seems (to me anyway) to cut down on
how quickly the whole thing gets fragmented again.

Regards,
DW

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

jt wrote:
> "relic" <abuse@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
> news:6q02e.47097$VD5.404@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> jt wrote:
>>> "relic" <abuse@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
>>> news:aTI1e.193$e06.28@twister.socal.rr.com...
>>>> jt wrote:
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or
>>>>> should I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or
>>>>> PerfectDisk?
>>>>
>>>> 1. VoptXP.
>>>> 2. Disk Keeper.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 473. PerfectDisk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 943. XP'x Built-in Defragger.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 2,789. O&O.
>>>>
>>> Is there a reason you rank O&O so low? A friend recommended it to
>>> me, and as I know next to nothing about commercial defraggers, I am
>>> simply curious.
>>
>> It seem to get good comments from users, but I've never used/tried
>> any piece of software that ran as slow. I'm old enough to be
>> retired, and I was honestly afraid that I would die before it
>> finished... I finally aborted it. The biggest reason I rated VoptXP
>> tops is its speed.
> Odd. I downloaded and ran the trial version of O&O and it flew on my
> machine. By contrast, the trial of PerfectDisk crawled and after it
> was done, my system was slow as mud. I then ran O&O again and it was
> much slower this time, but after it ran my system was at least fast
> again. I've seen many recommendations for PerfectDisk, but after my
> experience I wouldn't buy it with my neighbor's money.

"Try it for free" link at the bottom:
http://www.vopt.com/VoptXP.htm

--
If there is a Tourist Season, how come we can't shoot them?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message news:Ux02e.69725$c72.23442@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

> Odd. I downloaded and ran the trial version of O&O and it flew on my
> machine. By contrast, the trial of PerfectDisk crawled and after it was
> done, my system was slow as mud. I then ran O&O again and it was much
> slower this time, but after it ran my system was at least fast again. I've
> seen many recommendations for PerfectDisk, but after my experience I
> wouldn't buy it with my neighbor's money.

I recently played around with PerfectDisk and O&O Defrag. The target
was a 70% full 4.5 year old 20GB drive that has never been reloaded
with OS, but that has seen alot of use, particularly when it comes to
application installs/removes updates. FWIW, the drive has been regularly
defragged using the built-in. My goal was to see what each defragger
could do if time were of no issue, so I didn't play around with some of
the options. I did a boot defrag using PerfectDisk and it took a fairly
long time. There was little if any improvement in boot time, but the system
did feel a tiny bit more snappy. Later I did a complete by name type
defrag using O&O, and IIRC it took considerably longer to do its thing.
Again, there was little if any change in boot time. However, there was a
noticeable improvement in application load times, presumably due to
the restoration of application files proximity.

I need to spend some more time evaluating the defraggers, but I must
say that I do like the concept of being able to restore proximity. It
would be nice if users had even more control over where dirs/files
get placed (I'd experiment with putting archived and infrequently used
stuff at the highest LCNs).

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Ken Gardner wrote:
> "Enkidu" wrote:
>
>
>>>You should look at some studies on the effects of fragmentation:
>>>http://www1.execsoft.com/pdf/Diskeeper_Evaluation.pdf
>>
>>Hmm, do the words "vested interest" mean anything to you? I
>>notice that they are very careful to leave out any mention
>>of disk caching, paging, running from memory and all the
>>other things that are done today to speed up applications.
>>
>>If an application does a read, process, write, read,
>>process, write cycle all the time there might be benefits
>>from defragging. Typical applications don't do that.
>>
>>Only if an application is heavily I/O bound is there any
>>benefit from careful placement of files on disks. The only
>>real-world example I can think of is backup and from my
>>tests the benefits were only a few percent.
>
>
> Although I disagree with you about defragmentation, you are
> actually closer to the truth than many people might think,
> especially if you have a machine with lots of RAM and you
> either leave your machine on all the time or you merely log
> out without actually rebooting, i.e. a system in which
lots of
> program code and data end up in the RAM system cache and stay
> there for long periods of time.
>
Yes, all the testing that I've done was on servers, which
typically have the characteristics you mention.
>
> The point is that -- other things being equal -- CPU and
> RAM probably account for about 95-97% of system performance,
> with a defragmented and junk-free hard drive accounting for
> the remaining 3-5 percent.
>
If you mean that you could improve performance by those
%ages, I'd agree with you. Disk is so slow relatively,
though, that the 3-5% improvement *should* make a huge
difference. In a server situation though, I've not seen it
make a noticeable difference.

One test I'd like to make, if I were doing this today would
be to run a script-based testing tool rather than use simple
batch files.
>
> There is no good justification for putting up with a 3-5
> percent performance hit by not regularly defragging doing
> idle periods, but on the other hand the benefits of
> defragmentation are often overhyped, especially by
> the third party defragmentation vendors.
>
There very few independant studies. Search for
defragmentation on the web and you there is almost no hard
evidence. There's plenty of references to Microsoft
documents which talk about defragmentation and how it works,
but little evidence that quantifies the possible
improvements. Which are likely to be different for database
servers or web servers or workstations or home machines.

There was a need for defragmentation back in the early days
of Windows with small, slow disks on FAT16 filesystems. I'm
not convinced there's a need when we have large, fast disks
and NTFS filesystems. Not to mention large amounts of RAM.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Newsgroups are available to an audience of millions. You should pick one
group and post there.

Modem Ani

"jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
news:ye%1e.69459$c72.55181@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Modem Ani" <notquinoas@notmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:ui0FQe6MFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > The native defragmenter is completely adequate unless you are running a
> > server.
> >
> > "Don't Become a Defrag Junkie"
> > http://www.michna.com/kb/WxDefrag.htm
> >
> > P.S. Aren't there some newsgroups you forgot to cross-post to?
> >
> Perhaps. Since I was looking for opinions, I figured several xp groups
> would procure more than simply one or two. Would you like to suggest
other
> helpful groups?
>
> >
> > "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
> > news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I
> >> get
> > a
> >> better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
> >>
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Modem Ani" wrote:

> So, now that you've taken the plunge, how much faster does your system run?
> How much faster does it boot? Got any before and after benchmarks to share?

If only people would answer these types of questions after trying all
so-called "performance enhancing" software, they would have a much better
understanding of how well XP actually performs even when you don't mess with
it beyond what it is already designed to do.

Ken

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"My own personal experience, which is as a workstation user, is that a
regularly defragmented hard drive can save you seconds rather than
milliseconds in disk drive operations, i.e. you can actually notice the
difference."

I think most people would agree with you.

Many users do not seem to realize that XP performs partial defrags in the
background, and that the design of these defrags - as I understand it - was
well thought-out to get the best bang for the buck. A third party defragger
is 'improving' on regular partial defrags, not on a system that has not been
defragged at all for months.

I have no problem if someone wants to use a third party defragger. If it
makes them feel better about their system and does no harm, why not go for
it. For me, the unmeasurable improvement in performance is not worth the
extra lines of code in RAM or the extra CPU. In my experience, a leaner
configuration runs best.

Modem Ani


"Ken Gardner" <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:375172DB-AE5A-430C-A287-6FD6895E1086@microsoft.com...
> "Enkidu" wrote:
>
> > There very few independant studies. Search for
> > defragmentation on the web and you there is almost no hard
> > evidence. There's plenty of references to Microsoft
> > documents which talk about defragmentation and how it works,
> > but little evidence that quantifies the possible
> > improvements. Which are likely to be different for database
> > servers or web servers or workstations or home machines.
>
> These points are sources of constant frustration that I have with most
> so-called performance enhancing software, including but not limited to
> defraggers. Intellectually I am perfectly capable of understanding that
> other things being equal, a defragmented hard drive will out-perform a
> fragmented hard drive. But are we talking here about seconds, tenths of
> seconds, or milliseconds?
>
> My own personal experience, which is as a workstation user, is that a
> regularly defragmented hard drive can save you seconds rather than
> milliseconds in disk drive operations, i.e. you can actually notice the
> difference. However, I cannot notice any transparent difference between
> defragging a hard drive using the XP built-in defragger and defragging
using
> a third party program such as Diskeeper or PerfectDisk. Of these
programs,
> only Diskeeper even attempts to measure the performance improvement you
might
> gain, but it does so in terms of percentages rather than actual time. If
it
> takes ten milliseconds to load a file when it used to take five
milliseconds,
> that may be a 50% improvement but no human being will ever notice it. If,
> instead, we are taking about tenths of seconds, then the improvement will
be
> noticable.
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> >
> > There was a need for defragmentation back in the early days
> > of Windows with small, slow disks on FAT16 filesystems. I'm
> > not convinced there's a need when we have large, fast disks
> > and NTFS filesystems. Not to mention large amounts of RAM.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Cliff
> >
> > --
> >
> > Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
> >

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Modem Ani wrote:
>
> Many users do not seem to realize that XP performs
> partial defrags in the background, and that the design
> of these defrags - as I understand it - was well
> thought-out to get the best bang for the buck.
>
That's interesting! Got a reference for that?

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Hello all,
>
> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get
> a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?

The native defrag is fully sufficient - no need for a commercial version.




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0513-0, 29/03/2005
Tested on: 30/03/2005 8:32:06 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:34:08 -0500, "Modem Ani"
<notquinoas@notmyrealbox.com> wrote:

>So, now that you've taken the plunge, how much faster does your system run?
>How much faster does it boot? Got any before and after benchmarks to share?

Well, as my past message indicates, I have only used it for a day now
so lets see if I can tell you what I have seen in one day.

And, as my previous posts indicated, I was using Norton's Speed Disk
which works much the same way as PerfectDisk in that it not only
defrags but moves everything forward to fill the "holes" which means
that refragmentation takes a bit longer to occur unlike on systems
that were only defragmented but the bunches of open "holes" were left
to excite further fragmentation.

So, with that, I have seen no difference between any speed taken to
load the mega CAD files we load on and off all day long between
Norton's Speed Disk and PerfectDisk. However, the defrag utilities
that I had tried before going to Norton's speed disk and now testing
PerfectDisk did show that they didn't do much to keep the loading time
on these mega CAD files down. I found out that the reason was because
they left open holes and every time a mega sized CAD file was saved,
it just starting filling in all the holes and thus became fragmented
and took longer to load up next time around.

So, All I can say is that in the specific type of operations we do
with computers, defragmenting Along With compression or filling the
holes up or whatever the specific utility calls it, does better at
mega CAD file loading performance. I see no sense in defragmenting if
you aren't going to fill up all the holes left behind. Sorry if I
don't use the proper technical terms for everything but I'm just a
business owner that looks for anything to keep the performance of our
CAD machines up to snuff. I go with what my operators tell me works
because they are on the systems 8-10 hours/day. They say
Defragmenting WITH Compression (filling the holes up) is the ticket.

Even though Speed Disk and PerfectDisk operate the same (give the same
performance benefits), I like this PerfectDisk's GUI and graphical
progress indicator better that Norton's. That is why I am leaning
toward changing from Norton to PerfectDisk and of course as long as it
keeps my CAD operators happy.

Hope this answered your question.

Regards,
DW

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Modem Ani" <notquinoas@notmyrealbox.com> wrote in message newsG3ia4KNFHA.3512@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Are you looking for a reference about whether XP performs partial defrags in
> the background or whether these partial defrags were designed with "best
> bang for the buck"?
>
> If you're asking about partial defragmentation, information on this abounds.
> For example, this from TechNet: "Once every three days, by default, Windows
> XP will perform a partial defragmentation and adjust the layout of the disk
> based upon current use."
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/p [...] pperf.mspx
>
> If you're asking about "best bang for the buck" - sorry, while I have read
> that more than once I can't remember a specific reference right now.

Some more info is presented down the page at:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/syst [...] hmark.mspx

You can actually see the results via something like SysInternals DiskView,
which is just below this link:
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/ [...] ml#diskext

Sometime after running an O&O complete by name defreg/optimization,
XP did its thing on my drive. I didn't check them all, but it appears that
the files listed in my layout.ini were moved to a contiguous block which is
approx 80% of the way into my volume and sits alone, the last thing on
the volume. Visually speaking that is. According to MS that should be
closer to the outer edge of the disk, but that still doesn't smell right to me.