Jump to content


Experienced Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MikeYates

  1. My ideal defrag program would have these options (or buttons) for each drive:- 1) Defrag files (quick) 2) Defrag space (not so quick) 3) defrag files while dfragging space (slow) 4) defrag files, then defrag space (useful when available time unknown) 5) sort files, oldest first, while defragging files and space (very slow)
  2. I suggest you obtain the statistic "Number of Free Space Fragments" and display it in the user interface, preferably in real-time. It is available in the built-in defragger of Vista, 2008 and Win7. (/a /v) IMHO it is the only meaningful measure of how fragmented a disk has become because "1%" can mean that the most frequently read thousand files of a typical 100,000 file system volume are fragmented with over a thousand fragments each! It is much more important to prevent FUTURE fragmentation by "closing the gaps" than to join up presently fragmented files. Under 100 gaps is a really good result for an active system disc.
  3. Just pulling this thread forward again. Be nice to have a response.
  4. Just to keep this thread visible to the developers!
  5. Number of Free Space Fragments ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hey, developer guys, I'm disappointed that you haven't put this in the latest version. (see thread of this title) If the built-in Vista defragger can do it, why can't you?
  6. 1) Defraggler graphic display does not seem to show directories. There may be many (fragments of) directories scattered around what looks like free space, preventing the parts being joined up. Also, you have a narrow chart. Try stretching it down the screen to increase the resolution - fewer clusters per displayed block - and some blockages may appear. 2) You don't say if you're running Vista. Defraggler cannot (usually) move the pagefile in Vista, nor can any "live" defragger. You have to use one which works on re-boot or use defraggler from a boot-CD to defrag the pagefile (and directories) in Vista. Hope that helps. Oh, by the way, the pagefile is usually accessed randomly in small bits, so there is no speed gain from uniting it.
  7. So all we need from the developers is a new option in the installer to disable update-checking, defaulted to 'not disable' with a clear warning that this may be advisable in some corporate environments. In addition, make the option only appear if "upgrading" - in this case re-installing.
  8. "Linux" caught my eye. Why on earth use a fragmentation-prone Microsoft file-system with Linux? If you are building this disc in your PC with NTFS, do you know for sure that your Linux -ROM NAS unit will be able to use it? If you are using FAT32, all videos will be truncated at 4GB, it will be extremely "fragile" and, worst of all, when you try to copy onto it a file bigger that 4GB, the copy will go on forever without telling you why! XFS is the best filesystem for huge discs of huge files, ReiserFS the best for millions of tiny files. EXT3 is almost as good as either and much better than NTFS. With "Ext2IFS" you can use Ext2/3 partitions in Windows.
  9. For your information... This statistic is included in the command-line verbose operation of the defragmenter included with Vista. It has more options than the one with XP, e.g. -c to defrag (not analyse) all hard discs. It is 226,816 bytes (XP one 25.088 bytes) because it does not need dll's so they are not locked. Here is a typical verbose analysis after a full Defraggler run, still leaving eight fragmented files and 1,172 free space fragments. However, running Defraggler twice more got that down to 142. Running Ms Defragmenter was not as effective. C:\Users\mike>defrag c: -v -a Windows Disk Defragmenter Copyright © 2006 Microsoft Corp. Analysis report for volume C: Vista Volume size = 31.06 GB Cluster size = 4 KB Used space = 20.94 GB Free space = 10.13 GB Percent free space = 32 % File fragmentation Percent file fragmentation = 0 % Total movable files = 113,534 Average file size = 233 KB Total fragmented files = 8 Total excess fragments = 15 Average fragments per file = 1.00 Total unmovable files = 28 Free space fragmentation Free space = 10.13 GB Total free space extent = 1,172 Average free space per extent = 9 MB Largest free space extent = 4.20 GB Folder fragmentation Total folders = 19,716 Fragmented folders = 10 Excess folder fragments = 42 Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation Total MFT size = 146 MB MFT record count = 114,181 Percent MFT in use = 76 Total MFT fragments = 2 Note: On NTFS volumes, file fragments larger than 64MB are not included in the fragmentation statistics You do not need to defragment this volume. C:\Users\mike>
  10. Well, I didn't think it was any use making a special partition for the pagefile in Windoze - you've just confirmed that. If you had two drives, it IS worth putting the pagefile on the other one BUT windows complains that it can't do error-dumps then. An off-line defrag is by far the most efficient. UBCD comes with (I think) 4 defraggers. Still best to run the latest defraggler from your hard-drive when booted on the CD, though. Pagefiles and Hiberfiles can easily be moved when booted into a CD-Linux system (e.g. Knoppix, Slax, Ubuntu-Live) too, provided they have the new reliable NTFS-3G drivers. I rather think you can move all the $files too, but I'm not sure now.
  11. Yes, you should. A fragmented pagefile is not too bad - it only gets used it little bits anyway. Did you try creating a fresh pagefile? Defragging without one? What about an off-line (not the system disc) defrag? Defraggler DOES move $files if it can. Either put your HDD in another PC as second drive (or in a USB "caddy") or build a UBCD and run defraggler from that separate CD-booted system.
  12. That depends how you intend to set up the new hard disc (are you buying one?) and how much IT experience you have. If you want the new disc to be an NTFS clone of your FAT set-up, with all your applications still installed, "ntbackup" which is included (in the Accessories/System Tools menu or to add as a feature) in XPpro but not XPhome is best. (If you have XPhome, you're supposed to buy the "Plus" pack but it already has all the dll's for ntbackup, you just need to copy the little ntbackup.exe from a pro!) Yes, DVD will do, but it may be tedious to divide your data between them in separate backups, each under 4.2 GB. One of them must be a complete working XP system, because the method is to install a bare XP on your new disc, then restore a full-system backup (must include "System State") to overwrite it. If you have a USB-hard-disc that is much easier to do in one chunk. Your system restored from your first DVD will have loads if issues due to missing bits, though returning to a restore-point, carefully created in advance, after they're all back, "should" work. Another option is to install your new disc as a second drive (if there are cables for it inside - you haven't said if this is a laptop! - involving the master/slave jumper if not SATA) format it as NTFS and put a complete ntbackup onto it. Then remove the old drive, make the new one master and install a bare XP, carefully opting to use the existing partition, to do the restore. Second best choice would be a Linux "tarball" backup and restore (with fiddly boot-sector work) and third, buy "Norton Ghost". Don't be surprised to have to speak to Microsoft (at least a robot) on the phone before you cat get your XP "activated" again.
  13. If you have bad tracks or cylinders on your HDD, nowadays it is best to just bin it because they cost UKP60 or less. You need to buy or borrow a USB/Firewire external disc to transfer your data, using UBCD. You can combine those with a "USB caddy" so that you can transfer an external disc to internal. If you have no money and can borrow an external disc, you could re-partition to avoid bad cylinders, but failing discs usually continue to fail and more bad cylinders will appear before long. Fat32 is dreadfully unreliable. A single bit wrong in the boot sector can ruin the whole thing completely by making the next program overwrite the wrong FAT area. NTFS is only a bit better. The Linux Ext2 (or Ext3) system is far better. You can't boot Windows in Ext2, but there is a freeware "Ext2IFS" driver so that you can use it for a second partition with WinXP/Vista, to hold your big, valuable data. It doesn't suffer from fragmentation (hardly) at all. Unless you have a little Linux bootable partition as well, you can create and maintain it with a Linux CD system such as "Knoppix".
  14. AFAIK the sys-restore system itself does not interfere with defraggler BUT it does put a huge number and size of files into "System Volume Information" where you cannot see them at all with Windows Explorer (or almost any other tool). So, yes, delete all Restore Points (ONLY IF BACKED-UP!) before a big defrag and don't forget to re-enable sys-restore afterwards. Looking at the top of this thread, the image shows a DREADFULLY fragmented drive. Defragging weekly or even daily is MUCH quicker each time. As I explained in another thread, "1% fragmentation" can be highly misleading. It can mean that 5,000 (of a typical half-million) files, probably all of the most frequently used ones, are broken into a thousand fragments each! Other common slow-downs are Antivirus (suspend on-open detection if possible) and indexing services, especially "Copernic" "Google Desktop" and by far the worst "Windows Search v4". IMHO these are NEVER worth running constantly, anyway.
  15. 1) "Analyse" on the "File list" tab 2) Click the "Size" header-box twice. 3) Click the select-box in the headers to select all. 4) De-select the biggest 10 (or so) files. 5) "Defrag Checked" then "Analyse" again. 6) Maybe defrag some individual big files first if they have big bits near the top (highlight to show location). 7) Select all and "Defrag Checked" 8) Move to the "Drive C:" tab and "Defrag" to compact. 9) Compact a second time to tidy the bottom edge. Reasons; a) because defraggler takes files to fill a gap from anywhere, instead of as low as possible moving smaller files out of the way first gets more big files unified. So, developers, please change these "foibles", which are already in the "suggestions" thread.
  16. I just tried PageDefrag and it doesn't do Vista - unchanged since Nov 06. There is another method, though it requires two reboots instead of one. Go into "Virtual Memory Settings" in "Advanced" in "Properties of My Computer". Opt for no pagefile at all, then reboot and opt for a fixed pagefile (I recommend 1.5xRAM). That will need another reboot. Unless your remaining space was fragmented, your new one should be in one piece. If not, run defraggler during the no-pagefile session.
  17. Yes, that was "SpeedDisk", an excellent product neglected by Symantec after they bought Norton. It was Win9x only and their attempt at NTFS was rubbish. I just trialled "Norton Utilities v11" and the defrag shows no information at all, like the provided Vista one. At least the provided Win9x one admitted it was a cut-down SpeedDisk by acknowledging Symantec copyright, while the NT/2K/XP one admits that it is a cut-down "DiskKeeper", copyright Executive Software. None have counted free-space-fragments, AFAIR, except a few ChUI defraggers.
  18. Vista "locks" a lot more files than XP and you can't (seem to) disable Hibernation (temporarily) to defrag the huge hiberfil.sys The best thing I can suggest is that you make an "Ultimate Boot CD" and use defraggler from that independent XP system. Another option may be to move your hard drive temporarily to another PC as a second drive. I said "make" a boot-CD because Ms licences prohibit anyone legally distributing a workable Windows boot-CD. The Ultimate is a kit to brew your own legally, using the license already valid for the same PC. It is a long and tedious process and (so far) not ready for Vista, so that solution requires your PC to have been upgraded from XP and to have the XP installation CD from which to build the UBCD. There is another legal option: buy a "Windows Embedded" kit at huge cost. Its boot CD has the advanced "Windows Pre-Installation Environment" (nickname WinPie) which has sufficient desktop to run Defraggler and from which UBCD (and others) are derived. So, have you thought of using Linux? Most Linux file-systems don't suffer fragmentation in the first place!
  19. Number of Free Space Fragments **************************** I suggest that this is by far the most useful statistic in defragmentation. It is not displayed at all in Defraggler. I have started a thread in the general area to discuss this. Please, if you are a developer, just acknowledge that you have seen it.
  20. Is this being seen at all by the developers? Is what I ask an impossibility? I would have thought that the information could be drawn from the analysis data, since that is used to draw the visual map.
  21. I have started a thread "Number of free space fragments" in the general discussion. It is really a suggestion that this statistic be obtained and displayed, so this is a marker for it here.
  22. I wonder how difficult it would be to obtain this statistic for real-time display? IMHO it is the only statistic which shows the degree of fragmentation, in particular the vulnerability to future fragmentation. If 1% of files (when there are, say, one million on the volume) is fragmented, the system will be very seriously slowed by 10,000 files in, say, 100 average fragments, so "1% fragmentation" is highly misleading. Under 100 free space fragments would be a fairly good result. Sorry if this has been said here before - I haven't had time to search.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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