The latest version of Diskeeper has some features you may not know about...
* Can defragment the MFT
* Can defragment the paging file.
* Can defragment the directory structures.
* Can set execution priority to speed up defragmentation times or
minimize CPU utilization.
* Can be set to defragment for maximized disk performance, quick defrags,
or reduced free space fragmentation.
* Has a special mode that defrags the MFT and page file on-the-fly. In
other words least amount of fragmentation always.
Besides, best disk performance is more important that even least fragmented
free space. Just booting up XP will fragment files. I would think you want
the best performance of your machine most of the time and all of the time if
you can get to that pinnacle. Since Diskeeper can be configure to only use
idle time to defrag, you can actually do work with minimal performance
impact DURING a defrag operation. PerfectDisk ALWAYS uses a noticeable
about of CPU while it is defragging and ALWAYS impacts performance levels of
the machine very noticeably. Since PerfectDisk also takes longer to do its
job, I would say the resulting usable performance is higher with Diskeeper.
| Faster equates to better? Today, most people don't think so - they think
| that the more complete job that you do, the better
|
| I could write a defragmenter that will finish running in 30 seconds. That
| defragmenter would be the champion of fastest defrag - the problem is that
| it would only defragment one file at a time and you would need to run it
| over and over again.
|
| PD actually does more work than Diskeeper. For a truer comparision, run
| PerfectDisk in Defrag Only mode. That way, PD will basically function
like
| Diskeeper - defragmenting files and not really performing any free space
| consolidation. Running in Smart Placement mode (the default), PD not only
| defragments files, it also consolidates free space and places files so
that
| the partition re-fragments slower - PD does all of this in 1 pass.
|
| Any commercial defragmenter can be scheduled to run whenever you want -
| Diskeeper doesn't have an exclusive on this option?
|
| Just my two cents worth...
|
| - Greg/Raxco Software
| Microsoft MVP - Windows Storage Management/File System
|
| Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
| commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
department.
|
|
|
| | > After using both PerfectDisk, Speedisk, and Diskeeper; I prefer
Executive
| > Software's Diskeeper. It has more options than PerfectDisk and defrags
| > drives faster, especially after the 1st defrag. I can schedule it to
| defrag
| > only an night when I'm not on the machine and I can set the process
| priority
| > from anywhere from highest (faster than normal) to lowest (idle time).
| >
| message
| > | > | Not using Microsoft's defrag APIs caused lots of problems for
Symantec.
| > | They were dedicating a significant amount of resources simply ensuring
| > that
| > | they were compatible with hotfixes/service packs released by
Microsoft.
| > | That is why with Windows XP, SpeedDisk now uses Microsoft's defrags.
| > | Granted, what they were able to accomplish defrag wish by bypassing
| > | Microsoft's defrag APIs was impressive.
| > |
| > | Now that Symantec has discontinued support and development of
SpeedDisk
| > for
| > | the enterprise (servers), they are recommending PerfectDisk to their
| > | enterprise customers.
| > |
| > | - Greg/Raxco Software
| > | Microsoft MVP - Windows Storage Management/File System
| > |
| > | Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
| > | commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
| > department.
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | | > | > paul diertich - typed:
| > | > > On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:08:54 -0400, Ricardo M. Urbano - W2K/NT4
MVP
| > | > >
| > | > >>
| > | > >> Aside from that, if you use Norton's crappy SpeedDisk, you would
be
| > | > >> *required* to upgrade almost anytime a new SP was released since
it
| > | > >> was SP dependent.
| > | > >
| > | > > It gives you a warning, But that's all.
| > | >
| > | > I would not use any defrag app that didn't use MS's own API. NSD
| doesn't
| > | > & I'm not sure that O&O does either. PD & DK do use MS's API, so
don't
| > | > fight the Prefetch process which is effectively a form of
| > | > defragmentation itself. Can't comment on Vopt XP but it gets
| recommended
| > | > by someone who's judgement I normally trust. The problem with custom
| > | > API's is that a Service Pack can break them. Why re-invent the
wheel?
| > | > --
| > | > Paul
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
