Some Opnions on Diskeeper Defragger??

[George Orwell]

I'm using Windows XP Pro (SP2).

I downloaded Diskeeper's freebie that can be used only manually - Diskeeper
Lite 9.0.528, and I'd appreciate some input here.

I notice that it takes *forever* to defrag my disks compared to the
built in XP defrag utility. Of course, it was the first time defragging
the drive, although I had defragged with XP's defrag about a week ago.
But, still, XP's defrag has *never* taken that much time. According to
their Web site, their defragger is supposed to be much faster than
XP's, but that certainly isn't what I have found. (It takes minutes
for XP's defrag to do my C: drive. It took almost an hour for
Diskeeper to do it.)

In addition, I see when it finished my C: drive defragging, the files
that were separated in the graph before defragging were still separated
afterwards. According to the graph, it didn't seem to have moved
anything. (I guess I'm not quite understanding what the graph is really
showing.)

Diskeeper also took over as the default defragger on my drive. I can no
longer use the XP defragger. (I did mirror the C: before installing, so
I could always go back.)

One bummer is when it defrags my E: or F: drives where I keep a number
of past copies of my C: drive made with Acronis True Image. Those image
sizes are about 15Gigs and take a looooong time to defrag.

I'm wondering if this program is worth the expense and time of my
upgrading to their paid-for Professional version?

Is it that much better at defragging than the XP defrag? I know it
has certain neat 'bells and whistles' that the MS defrag doesn't have,
but I don't care about the extras. I only care about whether its
defrag ability is really that much better than XP's defragger.

?

 

[Rod Speed]

I'm using Windows XP Pro (SP2).

I downloaded Diskeeper's freebie that can be used only manually -
Diskeeper Lite 9.0.528, and I'd appreciate some input here.

I notice that it takes *forever* to defrag my disks compared to the
built in XP defrag utility. Of course, it was the first time
defragging the drive, although I had defragged with XP's defrag about
a week ago. But, still, XP's defrag has *never* taken that much time.
According to their Web site, their defragger is supposed to be much
faster than
XP's, but that certainly isn't what I have found. (It takes minutes
for XP's defrag to do my C: drive. It took almost an hour for
Diskeeper to do it.)

In addition, I see when it finished my C: drive defragging, the files
that were separated in the graph before defragging were still
separated afterwards. According to the graph, it didn't seem to have
moved
anything. (I guess I'm not quite understanding what the graph is
really showing.)

Diskeeper also took over as the default defragger on my drive. I can
no longer use the XP defragger. (I did mirror the C: before
installing, so
I could always go back.)

One bummer is when it defrags my E: or F: drives where I keep a number
of past copies of my C: drive made with Acronis True Image. Those
image sizes are about 15Gigs and take a looooong time to defrag.

I'm wondering if this program is worth the expense and time of my
upgrading to their paid-for Professional version?

Is it that much better at defragging than the XP defrag? I know it
has certain neat 'bells and whistles' that the MS defrag doesn't have,
but I don't care about the extras. I only care about whether its
defrag ability is really that much better than XP's defragger.

Anyone with a clue has noticed that there isnt any need to
defrag with anything with modern OSs and modern hard drives.

 

[hbutler]

Dear George,

I can sense your frustration. Manual defragmentation isn't much fun
and I'm sure you have better things to do than wait for
defragmentation to complete. Diskeeper Lite is a definite step up
from the Built-in defragmener, but it is a manual operation.

Wouldn't you rather have a solution that improves the file system
performance without you having to lift a finger?

Diskeeper 2007 does that and much more. The length of time that it
takes to defrag a volume becomes unimportant because it is happening
automatically 24 hours a day 7 days a week. It does this by running
in the background using only system resources that would otherwise be
idle. An amazing new feature in Diskeeper 2007 is Invisitaking which
no other defrag solution offers. This function truly allows Diskeeper
to run undetected while you are using your computer for other useful
work.

With regards to the graphical display of fragmentation, there are
limits to what is displayed. It's possible that a very large file
which is highly fragmented is moved and made substantially less
fragmented, but technically it is still a fragmented file and will be
shown in red as a fragmented file. You should look at the Analysis
Text file and note the exact level of fragmentation. Important
numbers are Total Files, Fragmented Files, Excess File Fragments.
Even the list of the top 50 most fragmented files will help you better
understand what is fragmented.

When Diskeeper is installed it does make it the default defragmenter
so that whether you launch Diskeeper via the desktop icon or from
within the MMC you have access to Diskeeper. When you uninstall
Diskeeper the built-in defragment will become the default defragmenter
again.

I invite you to take a look at Diskeeper 2007 Professional and
download a trialware copy at
http://www.Diskeeper.com.

If you need further assistance, please check our FAQ section on our
website. We also have an Award winning Technical Support team that
can assist as necessary.

Thanks,

Howard Butler
Senior Technical Engineer
Diskeeper Corportation

 

[hbutler]

Anyone with a clue has noticed that there isnt any need to
defrag with anything with modern OSs and modern hard drives.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Rod,

Sorry that you don't agree, BUT all modern operating/file systems do
fragment. Some more than others.

What data do you have to support your opintion?

Here's a live example from a system (Windows 2003 Server) which I
recently looked at:


Statistics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Volume Files
Volume size = 5,210 GB
Cluster size = 4 KB
Used space = 3,380 GB
Free space = 1,830 GB
Percent free space = 35 %

Fragmentation percentage
Volume fragmentation = 64 %
Data fragmentation = 98 %

Directory fragmentation
Total directories = 8
Fragmented directories = 0
Excess directory fragments = 0

File fragmentation
Total files = 187
Average file size = 18,512 MB
Total fragmented files = 108
Total excess fragments = 3,252,352
Average fragments per file = 17393.25
Files with performance loss = 0

Paging file fragmentation
Paging/Swap file size = 1,812 MB
Total fragments = 589

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 72,464 KB
MFT records In Use = 42,913
Percent MFT in use = 59 %
Total MFT fragments = 1


Most Fragmented Files
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fragments File size Most fragmented files
324,233 50 GB \S2A\B2D000292.bkf
288,389 50 GB \S2B\B2D000124.bkf
150,574 50 GB \S2A\B2D000269.bkf
134,684 50 GB \S2A\B2D000189.bkf
124,218 50 GB \S2A\B2D000205.bkf
83,834 50 GB \S2A\B2D000206.bkf
83,034 50 GB \S2B\B2D000118.bkf
81,632 50 GB \S2B\B2D000123.bkf


Thanks,

Howard Butler
Senior Technical Engineer
Diskeeper Corporation

 

[Rod Speed]

Sorry that you don't agree, BUT all modern operating/file
systems do fragment. Some more than others.

Irrelevant to whether you actually achieve a thing by
defragging with a modern OS and modern hard drives.

The short story is that modern OSs frag so little in all but
a few special circumstances and modern hard drives seek
so fast that an occasional extra seek between fragments
wont even be noticed. In spades when the heads are moving
around a lot for other reasons as basic as internet caching etc.

While some apps like PVRs do certainly fragment, in practice
the speed of file access is entirely determined by the playback
speed, and that is vastly below what the hard drive can do,
so any extra head moves between fragments is completely
invisible, even if those files are on a dedicated drive.

There are few modern apps apart from PVRs, mp3 players
and the like that process big files linearly anymore.

What data do you have to support your opintion?

A proper double blind trial before and after. You
wont be able to pick the undefragged system.

Here's a live example from a system (Windows
2003 Server) which I recently looked at:

All that shows is the number of fragments,
not what effect those fragments have on ops.

More below.

Statistics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Volume Files
Volume size = 5,210 GB
Cluster size = 4 KB
Used space = 3,380 GB
Free space = 1,830 GB
Percent free space = 35 %

Fragmentation percentage
Volume fragmentation = 64 %
Data fragmentation = 98 %

Directory fragmentation
Total directories = 8
Fragmented directories = 0
Excess directory fragments = 0

File fragmentation
Total files = 187
Average file size = 18,512 MB
Total fragmented files = 108
Total excess fragments = 3,252,352
Average fragments per file = 17393.25
Files with performance loss = 0

Paging file fragmentation
Paging/Swap file size = 1,812 MB
Total fragments = 589

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 72,464 KB
MFT records In Use = 42,913
Percent MFT in use = 59 %
Total MFT fragments = 1


Most Fragmented Files
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fragments File size Most fragmented files
324,233 50 GB \S2A\B2D000292.bkf
288,389 50 GB \S2B\B2D000124.bkf
150,574 50 GB \S2A\B2D000269.bkf
134,684 50 GB \S2A\B2D000189.bkf
124,218 50 GB \S2A\B2D000205.bkf
83,834 50 GB \S2A\B2D000206.bkf
83,034 50 GB \S2B\B2D000118.bkf
81,632 50 GB \S2B\B2D000123.bkf

These arent what is normally seen on the personal desktop systems being discussed.

Howard Butler
Senior Technical Engineer
Diskeeper Corporation

Clearly you have a barrow to push. Funny that.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Hi Rod,

Sorry that you don't agree, BUT all modern operating/file systems do
fragment. Some more than others.

Correct, especially on disks with little space left. But a modern
filesysten, like ext2, has very little fragmentation of there is a
reasonable amount of space left. A typical number is below 1%
fragmented files.

What data do you have to support your opintion?

Here's a live example from a system (Windows 2003 Server) which I
recently looked at:


Volume Files
Volume size = 5,210 GB
Cluster size = 4 KB
Used space = 3,380 GB
Free space = 1,830 GB
Percent free space = 35 %

Fragmentation percentage
Volume fragmentation = 64 %
Data fragmentation = 98 %

Directory fragmentation
Total directories = 8
Fragmented directories = 0
Excess directory fragments = 0

File fragmentation
Total files = 187
Average file size = 18,512 MB
Total fragmented files = 108
Total excess fragments = 3,252,352
Average fragments per file = 17393.25
Files with performance loss = 0

Paging file fragmentation
Paging/Swap file size = 1,812 MB
Total fragments = 589

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 72,464 KB
MFT records In Use = 42,913
Percent MFT in use = 59 %
Total MFT fragments = 1

Most Fragmented Files
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fragments File size Most fragmented files
324,233 50 GB \S2A\B2D000292.bkf
288,389 50 GB \S2B\B2D000124.bkf
150,574 50 GB \S2A\B2D000269.bkf
134,684 50 GB \S2A\B2D000189.bkf
124,218 50 GB \S2A\B2D000205.bkf
83,834 50 GB \S2A\B2D000206.bkf
83,034 50 GB \S2B\B2D000118.bkf
81,632 50 GB \S2B\B2D000123.bkf

Guess this Filesystem/OS does not qualify as modern.
Why am I not surprised....

That would indicate theh MS has not managed to obsolete
the defragger after all. Linux has done so about 10 years
ago.

Arno

 

[Joep]

Dear George,
....
SNIP
....

I invite you to take a look at Diskeeper 2007 Professional and
download a trialware copy at
http://www.Diskeeper.com.

If you need further assistance, please check our FAQ section on our
website. We also have an Award winning Technical Support team that
can assist as necessary.

Thanks,

Howard Butler
Senior Technical Engineer
Diskeeper Corportation

He Folkert! He's spamming!

 

[Eric Gisin]

Idiot. What OS does NOT fragment 50GB files? Or even 1GB files?

 

[Alexander Grigoriev]

Do you expect well-used partition have 10 pieces of 50 GB each contiguous
free space? By the way, the worst file has fragments 150KB on average.

I would expect, though, these files are result of incremental backup, where
each new fragment is just a result of another run. One might well expect
that space after last written data would already be occupied.

 

[Juanthebull]

Who is Rod Speed? See this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage/browse_thread/thread/c4ea774e304aef58/
ad32331015efb66a

 

[Rod Speed]

Do you expect well-used partition have 10 pieces of 50 GB each contiguous free space? By the way,
the worst file has fragments 150KB on average.

I would expect, though, these files are result of incremental backup,
where each new fragment is just a result of another run. One might well expect that space after
last written data would already be occupied.

And that fragmentation doesnt actually matter a damn given that
backups are so rarely ever restored, and that that fragmentation
is unlikely to have any measurable effect on the restore anyway.

Its just some utterly irrelevant numbers plucked out of the
arse of some spiv and con man that's flogging a defragger.

Wota surprise.

 

[Rod Speed]

Juanthebull <[email protected]>
pathetic, really, Juanthepatheticexcuseforabullshitartist, actually.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

By the way, the worst file has fragments 150KB on average.

Or any backup or even any open files of uncertain size.

Or just any open file that is occasionally written to.

And that fragmentation

Thanks for confirming that fragmentation does indeed still happen
even though you said it doesn't.

doesnt actually matter a damn given that
backups are so rarely ever restored, and that that fragmentation
is unlikely to have any measurable effect on the restore anyway.

Its just some utterly irrelevant numbers plucked out of the
arse of some spiv and con man that's flogging a defragger.

Wota surprise.

Your bullshit, yes indeed, "Wota surprise!"