is there a better XP Defrag..?

[Leythos]

See you are wrong, again.

Files are cached. Caching makes fragmentation irrelevent. So that leaves files read for the first time. Your OS files will be probably unfragmented after install. That leaves data files. How many data files does one read at a time. I only load one word doc at a time. Even if it's in a thousand pieces it will still load faster than I can react.

Fragmentation causes a delay in filling the cache with the file
information. It's really a simple thing - if the head has to move to a
non sequential sector to get the next part of the file, there is a delay
in filling the cache. Where you see this impact users is in large files
or a heavily file fragmented drive.

Now a file copy of lots of fragmented files will take a while longer. Big deal, how often does one do that. The first application startup and system startup will take longer, but prefetch reduces the effect of this. It may not be measurable.

If file copy takes longer, so does the read of a fragmented file. You
should consider that there are two types of fragmentation:

1) File fragmentation
2) Free Space fragmentation

Both impact performance, File impacts reads, Free Space impacts
writes/growth.

Many drives only have a 2MB cache, some have 8MB, others are up to 16MB,
but most of the home users computers are using 2 or 8MB caches. Many
files are much larger than 2MB or 8MB and a delay in filling the cache
will impact performance.

Defragging a floppy only system pays good dividends, especially if smartdrv isn't being used. But as computers get faster and faster it doesn't matter.

If you defrag a floppy and see benefit, it's only because the head
movement takes longer on a fragmented floppy than it does on a hard
drive - so, while you may not measure it on a typical users computer,
the same applies - if the heads move to non-sequential sectors without
reading, in order to fetch data, there is a read-delay.

I use perfect disk. I do it from habit and because I like tidy computers.

Tidy, when talking about fragmentation, means performance, even if you
personally can't measure it.

The real issue is this:

1) Does defragmentation File/Space improve performance of a file system?

Ans: Yes, no question, it will improve performance without question.

2) What considerations are there for seeing the benefit to home users?

Ans: Many typical home users with large drives that remain mostly empty
will not notice any significant difference. Users with heavily used
drives with masses of data should be able to measure the difference
without guessing.

In this day, when many home users are editing photos, video, downloading
full DVD movies, etc... the amount of fragmentation is increasing, and
that means that drive performance suffers.

While defragging is free with all the versions of Windows, there are
significant differences in what Windows Defrag offers and what 3rd-party
defraggers offer.

 

[Edward W. Thompson]

Any third party defrag program is better than the built-in defrag.
They run a lot faster and will only defrag when needed. You can also
schedule them to run in the background while you're doing other things.

Third party defraggers are not better than the WINXP native defragger
unless running faster and having a pretty interface makes them better.
From a functional point of view the WINXP native defragger is equal to
all third party defraggers and unlike third party defraggers, is free.

 

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Third party defraggers are not better than the WINXP native defragger
unless running faster and having a pretty interface makes them better.
From a functional point of view the WINXP native defragger is equal to
all third party defraggers

Do you have some good facts to back this up? Or is it just a belief?

Gerhard

 

[Bert Kinney]

Hi Gerhard,

Here are some facts to contradict it.
An interesting study by one of the original developers of NTFS on free
space
consolidation and how NOT doing it can actually result in wasted disk
seeks
and actually make drive performance worse -
http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdisk2k/whitepapers/FreeSpace_WhitePaper.pdf

 

[Leythos]

Third party defraggers are not better than the WINXP native defragger
unless running faster and having a pretty interface makes them better.
From a functional point of view the WINXP native defragger is equal to
all third party defraggers and unlike third party defraggers, is free.

Forgive me, but what an utter crock of BS. Only one that doesn't
understand fragmentation of files and free-space would make such a post.
The XP Defragger doesn't not fully defragment and move files as almost
every other (third party) defragger does.

 

[David Candy]

So what?

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On 6/10/05 03:08:18, Edward W. Thompson wrote:

Do you have some good facts to back this up? Or is it just a belief?

I think the assertion is based on the OS's defrag API, which is called
by most defraggers. If the native defragger and add-on defraggers are
all using the same API, they'd be unlikely to differ in terms of
result; only convenience (e.g. defrag all volumes sequentially).

However, some defraggers may work in ways other than the API (Norton
Speed Disk is said to) or may parametize the API differently, and that
might make them more versitile, if not uniformly better.

More effective still, might be to partition intelligently. For
example, if NTFS insists on putting core file system structures plumb
in the middle of the volume so speed is much the same when it fills
up, but the volume never fills up, then you have all that head travel
for nothing - better to size the volume smaller, so no matter how
useless the defrag or file system logic, the total head travel is
constrained by the size of the volume.

------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -

Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!

 

[Gerhard Fiedler]

I think the assertion is based on the OS's defrag API, which is called
by most defraggers. If the native defragger and add-on defraggers are
all using the same API, they'd be unlikely to differ in terms of
result; only convenience (e.g. defrag all volumes sequentially).

I know about the common API that many use. But it is my understanding that
you can use that API in many ways.

Like compacting empty space (which I seem to recall that the XP native
defragger doesn't do, which then may cause quicker and more thorough
fragmentation of new files), or like more efficient ordering of files.

Gerhard

 

[David Candy]

They wrote the XP defragger. It is their ideas on defragging that the XP defragger represents. They maintained consolidation of free space is unnecessary (if you don't remember that's ok). Executive always believed that defrag should run without impacting the system.

But as their software was designed to just work they lost sales to other companies that believed in pretty defragging.

It's all a rort.

 

[Leythos]

They wrote the XP defragger. It is their ideas on defragging that the XP defragger represents. They maintained consolidation of free space is unnecessary (if you don't remember that's ok). Executive always believed that defrag should run without impacting the system.

But as their software was designed to just work they lost sales to other companies that believed in pretty defragging.

It's all a rort.

Seems to me that Diskeeper does a full free space consolidation on my
systems, has done it since DK7 was around.

 

[Guest]

Yes, the best program I found doing an excellent defrag in XP and NT (in Fat
32 or NTFS) is VOPT http://www.vopt.com/ for XP, NT, WIN xx.
When any other defrag program take hours, VOPT take minutes.
Regards.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Yes, the best program I found doing an excellent defrag in XP
and NT
(in Fat 32 or NTFS) is VOPT http://www.vopt.com/ for XP, NT,
WIN xx.
When any other defrag program take hours, VOPT take minutes.

I haven't seen VOPT in years, and wasn't even aware that it was
still around.

However, I would be very wary of judging a defrag program solely
on how long it takes to run. Defrag programs aren't all equal in
what they do, and it's always possible to be faster by doing
less.

Mind you, I'm not claiming that VOPT does less than other
defraggers--I don't know that--but just cautioning you that run
time is only one criterion for judging defraggers.

 

[Guest]

Any people can try a comparation between many defrag programs and to see by
themselves. I did this and I found that "vopt" is the best and the fastest.
Any can share or not this, is my modest experience comparing close 10
programs and all they take a long time and doing (some of they) less that
vopt and other, the same.
Good luck !

 

[John Robertson]

The best program I have found is Deskeeper for both Fat32 and NTFS from
Executive Software Diskeeper www diskeeper.com
john

 

[Edward W. Thompson]

In


I haven't seen VOPT in years, and wasn't even aware that it was still
around.

However, I would be very wary of judging a defrag program solely on how
long it takes to run. Defrag programs aren't all equal in what they do,
and it's always possible to be faster by doing less.

Mind you, I'm not claiming that VOPT does less than other defraggers--I
don't know that--but just cautioning you that run time is only one
criterion for judging defraggers.

I venture to suggest that it is most unlikely that the majority of Users
have the necessary tools and 'know how'
to objectively assess and compare the performance of defrag programs.
Speed of execution means very little as you observed.

 

[_RR]

They wrote the XP defragger. It is their ideas on defragging that the
XP defragger represents. They maintained consolidation of free space
is unnecessary (if you don't remember that's ok). Executive always
believed that defrag should run without impacting the system.

I've used a couple of the major 3rd party defraggers. I found that
the defragger running in the background is not quite as unobtrusive as
they'd lead you to believe. So the question for me was: would I
rather have time lost to fragmentation (possibly), or to the defragger
(definitely). I uninstalled the defragger.

But as their software was designed to just work they lost sales to
other companies that believed in pretty defragging.

I remember Vopt back in the day. It was cool watching it move blocks
around. I lost approximately 185,334,000 msecs in drive access time
watching Vopt, hoping that it wouldn't trash my drive<g>. (It didn't)

 

[Matt Silberstein]

See you are wrong, again.

Files are cached. Caching makes fragmentation irrelevent.

I just defrag my drive (which is pretty full). The performance
improvement was dramatic. I suppose it could be a coincident. Or
perhaps most files are only read once (or a few times) so the defrag
helps.

[snip]



--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

I've used a couple of the major 3rd party defraggers. I found
that
the defragger running in the background is not quite as
unobtrusive as
they'd lead you to believe. So the question for me was: would
I
rather have time lost to fragmentation (possibly), or to the
defragger
(definitely). I uninstalled the defragger.

I never defrag in the background, but always do it stand-alone. I
also always do it at night while I'm sleeping, and I don't care
at all how long it takes; it's always done when morning comes.
You might want to consider doing the same.

 

[_RR]

In

I never defrag in the background, but always do it stand-alone. I
also always do it at night while I'm sleeping, and I don't care
at all how long it takes; it's always done when morning comes.
You might want to consider doing the same.

I do that, just not that often, and with the standard XP defragger.
I thought that this particular 3rd party's claim to fame was
background defragging, so my point was in regard to this in
particular. There could be other merits to using 3rd party
defraggers, but I didn't see this as one of them.

 

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

Kelly,

You might want to let Microsoft know this as they will need to re-write
several of their white papers regarding Windows XP and the effects of
fragmentation on performance

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File Systems

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.

Hi Andrew,

Nothing more is needed. Fact is, you don't need to run it at all in XP.

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com