JOE Z.

Hi, Interesting approach, for a few large files. Certainly useful and good to know. Of course, if you "drag" the large file to the spare drive, Windows does a "COPY" rather than a MOVE - you still need to delete the originals, which I assume you do. I am surprised that when the large files are dragged back, they don't reoccupy their original fragmented segments, since Windows does not re-link them in real time. If you change the order of a list of files, in this process, the returned segments might now be "refitted, and rescrambled among old vacated segments used by different files of different sizes, which is not much better. But you still end up with the same size fagments, just rearranged. On the other hand, perhaps the returned files are actually assigned new CONTIGUOUS "unfragmented segments", at the end of existing files on the original disk, and that the original vacated segments are not "reused" for new files, until there is no more unused room left at the disk outer boundary. Of course, the down side of this procedure, is that the large file is moved closer to the outer edge of the disk, which naturally has slower access time, so the benefit of moving and restoring large framented files to gain access speed, can be diminished, by ALL new fragments, though sequential, are now accessed at slower speed, perhaps requiring more revolutions of the disk (sector latency) to complete a file access, in its new, slower storage section. Just my guess, however. However, after running my first Defraggler on 300 GB of files, when it ran (alone)uninterrupted for 24 hours, and still only reached a 95% completion, I decided to abort the run. This can't be right - at that point it as probably running in circles. Joe

Hi, I think defragging a drive is the longest task one usually runs into. I would like to suggest a few ways its speed and operation can be improved. (1) If a SECOND drive is available - like perhaps a "Backups" drive - that drive could be used for the temporary segment transfers. That way, there is less disk head activity on the target drive, and less shuffling of segments, in the same disk file space. Disk transfer time losses would be half as great. Two independent drives are better than one. Alternatively, the same is true when a backup drive is defragged - use the main drive for temporary working fragment assembly and storage. (2) I agree that the program should offer Sleep (or Standby), and Hibernate options for Defraggler completion. However, the worst problem is having to mess with "Windows Power Options" just to keep Defraggler running, and then remember to reset them to the original mode, after completion. This makes unattended schedule runs impossible to plan, and certainly to finish a full defrag in less than a day. When Windows enters sleep mode, so does the program. I would prefer to let it run its full course, usually overnight, on my schedule, perhaps defined in Win7 (etc) Task Scheduler. That would revert to the user's established Power Mode at competion, and simply times out. Since the screen is still active, the winodws with the results of the scan would still be available on return from hibernation. For example, this is the way I run a weekly Microsoft Security Essentials - FULL SCAN - which takes about 8 hours almost as long as any other defrag program. It seems that if I ran that program by clicking the option in Win-7, it starts, but if not watched, or the PC Keyboard is not used for a while, the PC sleeps and then hibernates, so does that MSE program, and the work is never completed.Other backups, Like Acronis or Norton Ghost, just crash when hybrid sleep or hibernaion kicks in. This should never happen. However, I created a "Windows Scheduled Task" for it, and for some reason, that method lets the MSE program run to completion, for the full run of 8 hours, WITHOUT my choosing the HIGH PERFORMANCE (no sleep/hibernate) Power Option. After it finishes, Windows (still using Balanced Power Option), simply times out and hibernates, nomally. The Task Scheduler allows a "drop dead" duration to be specified, so if one knows that a Defraggler run takes a certain number of hours, that could be used (plus a safety factor, as free disk space is used up), for the program to be timed out & terminated, leading to eventual Windows graceful sleep/hibernation - or whatever state the current Power Option is setup for. DEFRAGGLER could be set up (by the user), to run exactly the same way, by setting up the Defraggler "Command line options", in Task Scheduler, and wouldn't (necessarily) require Defraggler code modifications. However, with some clever "Piriform programming", Defraggler would be easier to use by the average "non-computer specialist", as well as being more useful. Hope this helps,