A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

defragmenting



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 23rd 15, 09:48 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default 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  
Old February 23rd 15, 11:24 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default 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  
Old February 24th 15, 01:13 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default 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  
Old February 24th 15, 08:03 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
No_Name
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 284
Default 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  
Old February 24th 15, 08:14 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default 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  
Old February 24th 15, 08:21 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default 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  
Old February 24th 15, 11:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Buffalo[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 686
Default 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  
Old February 25th 15, 12:37 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default 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  
Old February 25th 15, 01:00 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Gene Wirchenko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 496
Default 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  
Old February 25th 15, 01:22 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default 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  
Old February 25th 15, 02:22 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default 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



  #14  
Old February 25th 15, 05:09 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default 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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.