Voyaguer

Well, the defrag is now complete -- took about 36 hours, including about about 16 hours for the second copying of the big files. The work seems to have been successful. The disk is not very compact -- large gaps where the two big files were copied out from on their second copying. Now, just for grins, I am starting another defrag, with the box checked to move big files to the end of the disk.

Unbelievable -- that is what the subject line should read. I started this latest run of Defraggler early yesterday afternoon, and it is still running with no end in sight 32 or more hours later. After the episodes in previous postings, I copied the remaining uncopied big (38GB) file and deleted the original. The original file was not fragmented, but I hoped this would get the copy out of the end-of-disk area, freeing it up. No such luck. Windows must put the new file near the old one when it has room enough to do so. I then ran Defraggler, with the disk at 2% fragmentation, and it ran is a reasonable length of time. Good. (But note that it failed to move one of the big files to the end of the disk.) Next, with the disk now at 1% fragmentation, I unchecked the box to move large files to the end of the disk and ran Defraggler again. I was not sure what to expect, but certainly not what I got. It copied both the big file that was near the start of the disk and the copy I had recently made, neither of which was fragmented to begin with -- but they sure were after the copy got done. I wondered what it was doing, because it appeared to be putting them in an area with some blocks already in use -- I just presumed it must be moving those blocks out of the way first. Well, I guess my presumption was wrong. It was done with the original copies sometime this morning -- say about 12 hours ago. The Current State information indicated (and still does) 0% fragmentation, the overall state was "Defragmenting (100%)", and there were lots of brick-colored squares, mainly the two big files. I thought that I would have to write another report about starting with negligible fragmentation (1%) and ending with over 50%. I have no idea why it would take the time to copy those two big files into a fragmented state, but it did. I also have no idea why it would flag that it was nearly done (Defragmenting (100%)). It was not done -- nor is it yet done, many hours later. It re-copied the first big file, and is now re-copying the second of the two big files. The first copy ended up with no fragmentation in it, and I suppose the second one (still under way) will as well. There is a large brick-colored area remaining, though, so we'll have to wait for completion to know how successful Defraggler has been. Folks, my disk has 121 GB in use and 577GB free space. The files in question are 38GB and 42GB. Why in the world is Defraggler copying each of them TWICE? That takes a long time even for a dedicated copy command, and Defraggler is no dedicated copy command. It should not have had to copy either file, although I could understand copying the one at the end of the disk away from there and perhaps both of them if it was trying to do disk compaction. As is, it is doing an unnecessary 80GB - 160GB of copying, and it copies slowly (compared to a dedicated copy). --MV

Thanks for the caution. I'll leave my restore points alone. --MV

Yes, I am running system restore. No, I have not tried disabling it -- never occurred to me, since the Microsoft defrag tool has always run just fine. I would hope the Defraggler will run at least as well as the Microsoft tool -- I want Defraggler to improve my life, not complicate it. I tried a further experiment -- I copied one of the fragmented files because I have enough disk that the copy would be unfragmented. I deleted the original (fragmented) file. I made two attempts to copy the other fragmented file, but each time got a CRC error, so I just deleted it. At this point my disk had very little fragmentation -- just 2%. The good news is that I then ran Defraggler, it ran in a reasonable length of time, and it improved things modestly (there was not a lot to improve). Good. The bad news is that, even though I still have the box checked to move large files to the end of the disk, it has not done so. (It should have moved my new copy out there.) I also note that there are a couple of small files out near the end of the disk -- there were none before Defraggler, so I presume they are its handiwork, but I have no idea why it would do that. I still have one more experiment in mind to try to understand what is going on. So far, I guess I would have to say that results are decidedly mixed. --MV

I must not understand you correctly -- are you trying to tell me that one cannot defrag a disk under XP? I have been doing mine regularly for years using the Microsoft XP defrag tool. One can never get every last file -- perhaps that is what you are referring to -- but I have never had a massive amount fail to defragment. Actually, Defraggler worked the first time I tried it. I marked to move large files to the end of the disk, and it did. Took days to run, but it did complete, and the disk was defragmented (by which I mean the usual very small amount of fragmentation remained -- in my experience perfect defragmentation is not possible). It was the next time I ran Defraggler that had the problem. Furthermore, since Defraggler is the one that put those large files at the end of this disk, they should have been defragmented at that point. The disk block map agreed that they were. Given that they are copies of backups, nothing accesses them -- read or write -- so that status should not have changed. The next time I ran Defraggler the block map showed they were still fine. So why did the subsequent run of Defraggler even try to do further defragmentation on them? That was one reason to have Defraggler move them to the end of the disk to begin with -- so they would be out of the way and Defraggler would have no further reason to ever need to defragment them. That would speed up defrag time enormously. ---MV

Checking the analysis report, it is indeed the two largest files that are still fragmented. Very peculiar, considering that they were not fragmented before Defraggler ran. I am now asking Defraggler to defragment one of those files. If that is successful, I'll go for the other. Why Defraggler fragmented those two big files, though, is still a mystery to me. They are at the end of the disk. Since all they are is copies of old backups, nothing ever accesses them. Once degragmented (which they were) there is no reason for them to *ever* become fragmented again. --MV

I am a fairly new to Defraggler. Since it has a good reputation, I presume I must be missing something. I have been bothered by the fact that I can turn Defraggler loose on the disk with 2% or 3% fragmentation (by Defraggler's own measurement) and it takes a very long time -- literally days -- to defragment. During that time, it makes the disk 25% - 50% fragmented as it works -- that seems excessive. It also creates a heavy enough load on the computer, even when set to low priority, that it is a problem. The second, and arguably more important, problem is that when it is done, it reports 1% fragmentation (understandable) but its disk diagram shows a lot of brick-colored squares. In my most recent run, it conformed to the above description. When done it said: 99 Fragmented Files (1.1GB) 271 Total Fragments 1% Fragmentation Sounds good, but since there were a lot of brick colored squares, I immediately pushed the "Analyze" button. It gave figures more in line with all those brick-colored squares: 1,286 Fragmented Files (83.6GB) 19,582 Total Fragments 52% Fragmentation Just to get some confirmation, I brought up the default Microsoft defragmenter and had it analyze the disk. Basically, it agrees with Defraggler's analysis. It shows a lot of fragmented space. Its report says: 1,289 Total fragmented files 18,344 Total excess fragments 51% File Fragmentation The only explanation I can see is that there are three very large files on the disk -- they are compressed disk backup images of 38, 42, and 43GB. According to Defraggler's diagram, virtually all of the fragmentation is in these files (even though they were not fragmented to begin with). It appear that at least most of the fragmentation is in just two of the three files. ************************************************ ** Is it possible that Defraggler has a bug ** ** when processing huge files? ** ************************************************ ----- My setup is: Defraggler version V2.00.230 Pentium 4, 3GHz, with 3GB RAM -- not the most modern, but should be quite adequate About 1.3GB RAM in use. Windows XP Pro, SP3, all patches installed My disk is nowhere near full. Defraggler reports I have 160.7GB used, and 537.9GB free, so Defraggler has lots of room to work. ----- What I read is that Defraggler works well, and runs quickly. My experience is that it fragments my disk a lot, takes days to do so, and loads the computer a lot while doing that. OK -- any suggestions on what the problem might be before I uninstall Defraggler as non-functional? Thanks, MV