Jump to content


Experienced Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. thm

    Defragging the MFT

    Ah, well it appears that you have to explicitly name the metafiles in order for contig to do its work, e.g. .... contig $Mft Wildcards just do not seem to work with metafiles [here]. If you just type "config" on its own it will give you a list of metafiles that it can [supposedly] defrag, but I find that [with Vista] a number of them don't work. I knocked up a trivial batch script to use contig to defrag metafiles on a nominated drive [or drives], and have commented out those that appear not to work [access denied]. [Yes: I did run it in admin mode !] - thm Excerpt below.... ============================================================================================== @echo off if "%1%" EQU "" goto Usage set DO=contig.exe REM note some metadata commented out, as these appear not to work ! :Loop %DO% %1$Mft :: %DO% %1$LogFile %DO% %1$Volume %DO% %1$AttrDef :: %DO% %1$Bitmap :: %DO% %1$Boot :: %DO% %1$BadClus %DO% %1$Secure %DO% %1$UpCase %DO% %1$Extend :LoopTest shift if "%1" NEQ "" (goto Loop) else (goto TheEnd) :Usage echo This utility will attempt to defrag the metadata of the designated drives. echo. echo USAGE... echo [Template] DefragMetaData drives... echo [Example ] DefragMetaData C: D: E: echo. :TheEnd exit/B :: Note that this requires the Sysinternals "contig.exe" utility :: to be on the path. === Edit === Apologies for the lack of formatting - the forum editor appears to have removed white space...
  2. I was recently most intrigued to see that Mark Russinovich has updated his "contig.exe" command line defragging tool to be able to defrag a number of metadata files, including the MFT. => See here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/default.aspx Oddly enough, whilst this is mentioned [at the moment] on the Sysinternals home page, it isn't on contig's own webpage. Anyway, I downloaded it and tried it out, it did indeed defrag the MFT of one of my drives. I must admit, I always thought that this was infeasible [except possibly at boot time]. Anyway, I also recently tried out another well-known freeware defragger on a drive and noticed that it fragmented the MFT (as shown using Defraggler). So, then I tried to fix that using contig, and it worked. And then I refragmented it again using the other defragger, and upon a whim tried Defraggler on that drive to see if it could also defrag the MFT...and it did ! I've looked in the Defraggler history and can't find any reference to it becoming capable of defragging the MFT, so I am somewhat surprised at this ! Is this "for real", I wonder, or is Defraggler misreporting the status of the MFT ? Incidentally, I've tried Auslogics' DiskDefrag on the same drive when the MFT is fragmented, and it's not managed to fix it. So, over to the forum for comments.... - THM ------8<------------------- EDIT ------------------------->8---------- Well, I just googled about a bit and found this.... http://www.piriform.com/docs/defraggler/using-defraggler/understanding-the-drive-map Which explains that Defraggler can indeed defrag the MFT. Does anyone know when this capability was introduced ?
  3. thm

    Defraggler v1.16

    Good news re v1.16, but I note that v1.16 is not available yet on the alternative builds page [i like to put the Portable version on a USB Flash drive]. OK, I realise that now you have both 32 and 64 bit versions, you would need to distinguish these either within one archive or have separate archives for the portable version(s). Nevertheless, portable versions would be welcome (thanks) !
  4. ...I could be mistaken, but I think that the "problem" with the System Restore Files not being defragmented in Windows Vista is fundamentally a Vista issue, not an application issue. As I understand it, the access permissions on these files preclude them from being altered by defraggers. I don't know why Microsoft have done this, but I can hazard a guess at at least one of the reasons.... Their own Vista defragger will not normally defrag chunks of files bigger than 64MB, whereas System Restore files will typically be very much larger than this. I suppose in theory that one could change the access permissions on such files to explicitly grant yourself full control over them before running a defragging tool [presuming that said tool has not itself been deliberately coded to ignore these files], but I wouldn't recommend it ( ): there may be another reason that MS have protected these files of which I am unaware [e.g. some potential interaction with the Shadow Copy Service, which is used to create these files], and for all I know this could potentially trash your system or at least destroy the integrity of the restore points. See also the following pages for more background information... http://kessels.nl/JkDefrag/index.html https://blogs.technet.com/filecab/articles/440717.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_Defragmenter_(Windows) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Copy http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinte...s/bb897427.aspx
  5. ...Good news indeed, for those for whom 1.03.094 was slow [thanks due to MrRon &Piriform]. I am intrigued, though, that that version only appears to have been slow for some people [possibly a minority?] and not for others. I for one used this version on both a Pentium 4 machine with XP SP2 and a mere 40G disk, and an Athlon 64 x2 with Vista Home Premium and twin 280GB disks and found it to be just as fast as before, if not more so on both machines. So, now that a fix has been found, the problem must have been identified; was it something that can be explained on the forum [please] for the more technically curious amongst us ? -thm
  6. thm

    Feature request

    ...there isn't really any point in defragging a USB Flash drive, since it doesn't improve the performance and can only wear it out more quickly, as Flash drives have a limited number of write cycles. The main reason for defragging a hard disk is to bring the data close together in order to minimise the latencies introduced by having to move the read/write head (known as "seek time"). But Flash drives are all solid state: there are no moving parts to move, hence no associated latencies, hence defragging won't improve performance. As it happens, most Flash drives use a technique called "wear levelling" to deliberately remap the logical write locations to different physical locations in order to even out the wear on the drive. So, even if the drive "looks" defragmented (e.g. by looking at it with Defraggler), the actual file data may be scattered all over the place. -thm
  7. ...Yes, I concur: this is one of the main reasons that I too favour "portable apps". However, the window positions, sizes etc. may well need to be set per machine basis anyway, and Defraggler defaults to English [which I presume is your first language], so the only [slightly] significant things to consider are the update options. I can easily live with that! But [also] yes: it is nice when a "portable" app means *zero* use of the registry for maintaining information. It just feels clean and fresh ! Long live the .ini !
  8. ...True, although the only information stored in the registry relates to window position/size etc., whether to check for updates and how often, and what language to use. Very little information, and nothing that I would lose any sleep over: it's hardly sensitive information !
  9. Thanks for new features, especially the scheduler: that will be useful to many [but I've yet to get it to work at all under Vista...] There is just one [simple?] change that I would like to see made, and that is with respect to the "Defrag progress window that is displayed when defragging files (as opposed to whole drives or folders). The problem with this window is that it "locks" the GUI, such that the only thing that one can do with Defraggler when this window is shown is to Pause or Stop the defrag. This can be frustrating because one cannot minimise the main Defraggler window until the defragging is over... Previous versions (up until ~3 versions ago) used a simple borderless white window for showing progress, and this did not "block" the GUI. Could we return to that [please]? In the mean time, for anyone else who finds this blocking progress window a problem, a near workaround is to use the Action/Defrag Folder dialogue and select the appropriate drive. This is typically a bit slower than just defragging the files, but much quicker than a full drive defrag [i.e. including the freespace], and one can easily minimise the Defraggler window whilst it is working, so that you can use the PC for other stuff at the same time [and gain access to any desktop icons that might otherwise be covered by the Defraggler main window. Has anyone managed to get the Scheduler function to work under Vista ? -thm <Update> Ah, yes: the scheduling does work...it runs "df.exe" (the command-line version of Defraggler) under the scheduling service, so this is invisible (runs in the background). Can see that it is working from Task Manager (or better: Process Explorer), [Process Explorer available here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinte...s/bb896653.aspx] </Update>
  10. I certainly do have ideas! Even better, an explanation...It all depends upon how you use it. Defragging files with Defraggler is very quick, much quicker than most of the competition. But it can do much more than that: it can defrag folders and whole disks too, and rearrange them to consolidate the freespace. Now that *does* take a lot of time if your disk is well fragmented, as it implies moving vast quantities of data. Auslogics' Defragger *only* defrags files. That's it. And to be fair, that is all you need to do most of the time if you defrag reasonably often. Now, a few words about using Defraggler [v1.02.085]... If you just select a drive and click on [Defrag], you will do a full defrag of the selected drive, i.e. files, folders and freespace. As I mentioned above, this can take a long time, particularly if it hasn't been done for a long time. This would be much the same for any defragger if it consolidates freespace. To defrag just the files (generally very much quicker), then do the following... Select the drive and click on [Analyze], then Defraggler will rapidly analyse the disk and tell you how many fragmented files it has found. The either click on the "File List" tab or the [View Files] button, and it will show you the files that are fragmented. Then click on the "tick box" above the file list on the left hand side and all files will be selected and the text in the [Defrag] button will change to [Defrag Checked]. If you click on that button then Defraggler will defrag all those files. Quickly too. There are other ways that you can do this, for example, clicking anywhere in the file-list and typing Control-A to highlight everything and then the [Defrag] button changes to [Defrag Highlighted] - you get the picture [i hope !]. You can also use the right-click context menu within the file-list as an alternative. If you use the "Actions" menu instead, you can choose to defrag a folder. Actually, this will defrag the chosen folder and all files and folders within it recursively. This can take longer than defragging just the files, much much quicker than defragging the whole drive & consolidating the freespace. With this latest version of defraggler, if you defrag files only, using one of the above methods from the file-list, then you will get a progress window that locks out the rest of the GUI (a bit of a pity because it didn't used to do that), which means that you won't be able to [for example] minimise the Defraggler window whilst it is doing its work. One [almost] workaround for this is to use the Actions menu instead (as also described above) to defrag a folder - and selecting the root of the drive that you want to defrag. Then you won't get a separate progress window (but progress is shown in the drives window) and you will be able to minimise the Defraggler window so that you can get on and use for PC for something else. I say "almost" a woraround, since this will defrag both files and folders, so it may take a little longer than just files alone, however, you should still find it nice and quick ! Now all this may *sound* complicated, but it isn't: just try it out a few times and you'll soon get the hang of it ! - thm [---edit ---] I took so long writing this that Andavari beat me to it ! The above was in answer to your first post in this thread !
  11. @sb2k You certainly *do* have a problem there. I wish you the best of luck in trying to fix it, but it looks like you might be out of luck, given the lack of available support. But I do have some advice for the future: no doubt you will still need to use encryption (for your stated reasons), so why not use TrueCrypt ? [ http://www.truecrypt.org/ ] ...This is widely respected open source freeware, and can be used in a number of ways, for example... 1) You can encrypt the entire hard disk (as you did with Safeboot) 2) You could reserve some space on your hard drive for a virtual encrypted disk 3) You can use it in "installed" or "portable" modes. Being FOSS, it is still well maintained, the most recent update being July 8th. [ Apologies if you already know all about it... ] -thm
  12. ...well, when it's called portable, I think they just mean that it needs no installer. AFAIK all the "portable" versions still write to the registry. However, this is pretty minimal stuff (like window position etc.). As for the GUI mockups and suggestions, well yes; I recall quite a few good suggestions (including at least one from you) in the following threads:- V1.02.077 RC1 http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=16186 v1.02.078 RC2 http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=16319 Let's hope that they're not forgotten -thm
  13. Well spotted ! Tried this under XP Pro, with same results [as expected].
  14. I cannot see any reason why you would need to uninstall the old one first, but I ask the development team [or anyone else who may know better] to confirm/deny this. The reason I believe this is that the standard installer can actually be opened as an archive by 7-Zip, and if you do so, you will find inside the "defraggler.exe" and "df.exe" executables that are installed if/when you run the installer. These files are identical to the "portable" version that Piriform have packaged here... http://www.defraggler.com/download/builds/downloading-zip So...given that these are identical, I do not see that any installer is actually necessary other than for showing you the licence agreement and placing the files in the Program Files area & creating shortcuts and an uninstaller utility. In other words, the installer is essentially just a convenience. That being said, I think in general that you should either use the installer verbatim or the "portable" file, as you should respect Piriform's obvious [and very reasonable] desire for you to read the licence agreement. If you have already read the licence agreement, and a copy of it is in your installation directory, then it should be reasonable for you to merely download the "portable" version and copy the new "defraggler.exe and "df.exe" files over the installed ones in place [iMHO]. -thm
  15. Hmm. Thanks for that. Presumable then, the reg files in the attached zip file could be used to enable or disable the automatic background updates feature... Updates.zip Updates.zip
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.