If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
defragmenting
I am using defraggler by Piriform. I don't know who all is familiar with
that. But this is some things I have noticed. There is a "quick" defragmentation and the "regular" defragmentation. The defrags go much quicker with ntfs than with fat32. I run the "quick defrag" first and there may be some files that need individually defragged. Then I use the regular defrag and all seems to go pretty well. Now what am I doing when I am quick defragging and then just running the defragmenter? What's the difference? Bill |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
defragmenting
Bill Cunningham wrote:
I am using defraggler by Piriform. I don't know who all is familiar with that. But this is some things I have noticed. There is a "quick" defragmentation and the "regular" defragmentation. The defrags go much quicker with ntfs than with fat32. I run the "quick defrag" first and there may be some files that need individually defragged. Then I use the regular defrag and all seems to go pretty well. Now what am I doing when I am quick defragging and then just running the defragmenter? What's the difference? Bill It skips stuff, under your control. http://www.piriform.com/docs/defragg...s-quick-defrag Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
defragmenting
"Paul" wrote in message ... It skips stuff, under your control. http://www.piriform.com/docs/defragg...s-quick-defrag Oh I see. I must have a different version. Mine doesn't quite look like that. Bill |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
defragmenting
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:48:16 -0500, "Bill Cunningham"
wrote: I am using defraggler by Piriform. I don't know who all is familiar with that. But this is some things I have noticed. There is a "quick" defragmentation and the "regular" defragmentation. The defrags go much quicker with ntfs than with fat32. I run the "quick defrag" first and there may be some files that need individually defragged. Then I use the regular defrag and all seems to go pretty well. Now what am I doing when I am quick defragging and then just running the defragmenter? What's the difference? Bill I always liked the defrag on Win98 better than the one on Win2000 and XP. That older one always showed all the blocks being moved, and compacted them all together. The one on 2K and XP always leaves gaps. I find that really annoying. I've often ran defrag 4 or 5 times in a row, trying to get rid of the gaps, and it never happens. I have defraggler by Piriform on my laptop woth XP. It works a little better than the default one, but still leaves gaps..... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
defragmenting
wrote in message ... I always liked the defrag on Win98 better than the one on Win2000 and XP. That older one always showed all the blocks being moved, and compacted them all together. The one on 2K and XP always leaves gaps. I find that really annoying. I've often ran defrag 4 or 5 times in a row, trying to get rid of the gaps, and it never happens. I have defraggler by Piriform on my laptop woth XP. It works a little better than the default one, but still leaves gaps..... I definately agree with you on 98's defragmenter. It took a while too but as I remember you knew what was going on. XP just shows lines. Bill |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
defragmenting
On 2/24/15 12:14 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
wrote in message ... I always liked the defrag on Win98 better than the one on Win2000 and XP. That older one always showed all the blocks being moved, and compacted them all together. The one on 2K and XP always leaves gaps. I find that really annoying. I've often ran defrag 4 or 5 times in a row, trying to get rid of the gaps, and it never happens. I have defraggler by Piriform on my laptop woth XP. It works a little better than the default one, but still leaves gaps..... I definately agree with you on 98's defragmenter. It took a while too but as I remember you knew what was going on. XP just shows lines. IIRC, the defragmenter in 98 was written by Symantec (possibly the original Norton program) and XP's defragmenter was not. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 33.1 Thunderbird 31.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
defragmenting
"Ken Springer" wrote in message ...
On 2/24/15 12:14 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote: wrote in message ... I always liked the defrag on Win98 better than the one on Win2000 and XP. That older one always showed all the blocks being moved, and compacted them all together. The one on 2K and XP always leaves gaps. I find that really annoying. I've often ran defrag 4 or 5 times in a row, trying to get rid of the gaps, and it never happens. I have defraggler by Piriform on my laptop woth XP. It works a little better than the default one, but still leaves gaps..... I definately agree with you on 98's defragmenter. It took a while too but as I remember you knew what was going on. XP just shows lines. IIRC, the defragmenter in 98 was written by Symantec (possibly the original Norton program) and XP's defragmenter was not. I personally like the Free Auslogic's Defrag. Many prefer the Free MyDefrag. I found it slower and not as 'showy' as the Auslogics' one. I have basically not noticed any difference in speed after I defrag (Win7-64bit) and only do it around once a month. Still, MyDefrag as many enthusiasts. -- Buffalo |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
defragmenting
On 2/24/15 3:31 PM, Dave Doe wrote:
In article , , says... On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:48:16 -0500, "Bill Cunningham" wrote: I am using defraggler by Piriform. I don't know who all is familiar with that. But this is some things I have noticed. There is a "quick" defragmentation and the "regular" defragmentation. The defrags go much quicker with ntfs than with fat32. I run the "quick defrag" first and there may be some files that need individually defragged. Then I use the regular defrag and all seems to go pretty well. Now what am I doing when I am quick defragging and then just running the defragmenter? What's the difference? Bill I always liked the defrag on Win98 better than the one on Win2000 and XP. That older one always showed all the blocks being moved, and compacted them all together. The one on 2K and XP always leaves gaps. I find that really annoying. I've often ran defrag 4 or 5 times in a row, trying to get rid of the gaps, and it never happens. I have defraggler by Piriform on my laptop woth XP. It works a little better than the default one, but still leaves gaps..... A good defragmenter *should* leave gaps. Think about it. I've always wondered if the MS defragmenters starting with XP left any space. I've read a couple comments that it did, but nothing definitive. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 33.1 Thunderbird 31.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
defragmenting
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:37:21 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote: On 2/24/15 3:31 PM, Dave Doe wrote: [snip] A good defragmenter *should* leave gaps. Think about it. If there is any free space on the volume, they all leave space. It is just a question of where. I've always wondered if the MS defragmenters starting with XP left any space. I've read a couple comments that it did, but nothing definitive. IIRC, the XP defragger ignores files over 2 GB. I have a few such files with tens of thousands of fragments. Some filesystems -- though not on Windows that I know of -- allow one to specify that a file is to be so big and contiguous. The space is preallocated. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
defragmenting
Dave Doe wrote:
In article , , says... On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:48:16 -0500, "Bill Cunningham" wrote: I am using defraggler by Piriform. I don't know who all is familiar with that. But this is some things I have noticed. There is a "quick" defragmentation and the "regular" defragmentation. The defrags go much quicker with ntfs than with fat32. I run the "quick defrag" first and there may be some files that need individually defragged. Then I use the regular defrag and all seems to go pretty well. Now what am I doing when I am quick defragging and then just running the defragmenter? What's the difference? Bill I always liked the defrag on Win98 better than the one on Win2000 and XP. That older one always showed all the blocks being moved, and compacted them all together. The one on 2K and XP always leaves gaps. I find that really annoying. I've often ran defrag 4 or 5 times in a row, trying to get rid of the gaps, and it never happens. I have defraggler by Piriform on my laptop woth XP. It works a little better than the default one, but still leaves gaps..... A good defragmenter *should* leave gaps. Think about it. It's a matter of terminology. Sysinternals Contig is an example of a "pure" defragmenter. It puts the output file, anywhere it feels like. It lacks what is known as "file optimization". For example, if I did two files with Contig.exe, they'd end up like this +-----------------------------------------------------+ | XXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYY | +-----------------------------------------------------+ Those files are defragmented (all clusters side by side), but there is no obvious file positioning being done. The chosen file positions are random, and the volume easily fragments again. File optimization is what differentiates commercial defragmenters. The WinXP one does "move to the left" for optimization. It may be doing something with prefetch (.pf) files on an active basis. But the "move to the left" is not aggressive, as it would be with other commercial defragmenters. On a good day, WinXP might look like this. Sometimes the gap is actually $MFT (cannot move). +-----------------------------------------------------+ |XXXXXXXYYYYYYYYYY ZZZ | +-----------------------------------------------------+ Certain commercial defragmenters would give this. That's why we pay good money for these - "pretty output". +-----------------------------------------------------+ |XXXXXXXYYYYYYYYYYZZZ | +-----------------------------------------------------+ The JKDefrag, one of its configurable file optimization policies, was to push large files to the right, and the rest of the files to the left. So maybe there would be a gap in the center. +-----------------------------------------------------+ |XXXXXXXZZZ YYYYYYYYYY| +-----------------------------------------------------+ And JKDefrag also has a file optimization without defrag option - it can all the clusters to the left, leaving no gaps, but with not a thought about fragmentation. The result would be a "compact" but "highly fragmented" partition. This option is excellent before using a Partition Manager, to shrink a partition. As most everything is already pushed to the left (but fragmented). So the defragmenters can carry out various optimization policies. The commercial tools also vary in their ability to move metadata ($MFT or similar) files around. In the newer versions of Windows, where Disk Management offers a partition "shrink" option, Microsoft lacks the skill to move certain metadata files to the left. The end result, is partitions can only be shrunk by ~50%. Whereas, tools like Raxco PerfectDisk, can move the metadata (after a fashion - may require more than one run to achieve a desired result). There are certain "suggested rules" for file system layouts, and the defragmentation companies don't want to be seen to be promoting bad practices with the metadata. They may move the metadata, but they don't tend to "slam it against a wall". That's why more than one run may be required, depending on what you're doing. Paul |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
defragmenting
"Paul" wrote in message ... It's a matter of terminology. Sysinternals Contig is an example of a "pure" defragmenter. It puts the output file, anywhere it feels like. It lacks what is known as "file optimization". For example, if I did two files with Contig.exe, they'd end up like this +-----------------------------------------------------+ | XXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYY | +-----------------------------------------------------+ Those files are defragmented (all clusters side by side), but there is no obvious file positioning being done. The chosen file positions are random, and the volume easily fragments again. File optimization is what differentiates commercial defragmenters. The WinXP one does "move to the left" for optimization. It may be doing something with prefetch (.pf) files on an active basis. But the "move to the left" is not aggressive, as it would be with other commercial defragmenters. On a good day, WinXP might look like this. Sometimes the gap is actually $MFT (cannot move). +-----------------------------------------------------+ |XXXXXXXYYYYYYYYYY ZZZ | +-----------------------------------------------------+ Certain commercial defragmenters would give this. That's why we pay good money for these - "pretty output". +-----------------------------------------------------+ |XXXXXXXYYYYYYYYYYZZZ | +-----------------------------------------------------+ The JKDefrag, one of its configurable file optimization policies, was to push large files to the right, and the rest of the files to the left. So maybe there would be a gap in the center. +-----------------------------------------------------+ |XXXXXXXZZZ YYYYYYYYYY| +-----------------------------------------------------+ And JKDefrag also has a file optimization without defrag option - it can all the clusters to the left, leaving no gaps, but with not a thought about fragmentation. The result would be a "compact" but "highly fragmented" partition. This option is excellent before using a Partition Manager, to shrink a partition. As most everything is already pushed to the left (but fragmented). So the defragmenters can carry out various optimization policies. The commercial tools also vary in their ability to move metadata ($MFT or similar) files around. In the newer versions of Windows, where Disk Management offers a partition "shrink" option, Microsoft lacks the skill to move certain metadata files to the left. The end result, is partitions can only be shrunk by ~50%. Whereas, tools like Raxco PerfectDisk, can move the metadata (after a fashion - may require more than one run to achieve a desired result). There are certain "suggested rules" for file system layouts, and the defragmentation companies don't want to be seen to be promoting bad practices with the metadata. They may move the metadata, but they don't tend to "slam it against a wall". That's why more than one run may be required, depending on what you're doing. Never cared that much for contig...but then again I've never really understood it. I like defraggler. I hope it is good. Once files are defragged. It also defrags white space or empty clusters I assume is what that means. Bill |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
defragmenting
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
defragmenting
"Dave Doe" wrote in message ... I prefer Puran Software's Defrag - use it once a year to do a boot time defrag and checkdisk. IMO, that's as often as you need. The boot-time defrag gets to the MFT and pagefile - otherwise locked when booted into Windows. I have used that utility though not the defrag. I like the way it cleans registry entries. The thing about the MFT on an NTFS system that puzzles me is the size change. If files are added of course the MFT grows. But what if files are removed? Does the MFT get smaller? Bill |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
defragmenting
In article , lid, Bill
Cunningham says... "Dave Doe" wrote in message ... I prefer Puran Software's Defrag - use it once a year to do a boot time defrag and checkdisk. IMO, that's as often as you need. The boot-time defrag gets to the MFT and pagefile - otherwise locked when booted into Windows. I have used that utility though not the defrag. I like the way it cleans registry entries. The thing about the MFT on an NTFS system that puzzles me is the size change. If files are added of course the MFT grows. But what if files are removed? Does the MFT get smaller? Bill You've lost me Bill. Are you talking about Crap Cleaner? - ccleaner? I'm talking about Puran Software's, Puran Defrag... http://www.puransoftware.com/Puran-Defrag.html I've never tried any of their other stuff. -- Duncan. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|