Ramzy

I used Active File Recovery to retrieve the data, and it did an excellent job.

I don't want to downplay the amount of work Piriform have put into Defraggler. It's an excellent free tool, and they have done a huge amount of work. With that said -- Defraggler is one of the slowest defrag engines i have ever used. What takes Defraggler hours takes Perfectdisk or Diskeeper a fraction of the time. Besides the defrag speed -- I can analyze every single one of my drives with Perfectdisk, yet the RAM usage is no where near the same as Defraggler. Same goes for Diskeeper. Why is Defraggler any different? If Defraggler was an insanely fast defragger, i would say "fine, the ram usage is acceptable, it's putting all the information to good use" -- But Defraggler isn't fast. It's slow. Very slow. Slower than pretty much every other free or paid defragger available. Something is wrong. Either there's a bug, or you guys need to trim the fat off of Defraggler and optimize its memory usage, as the current system is yielding no performance increase, and still eating up insane amounts of RAM.

It doesn't. I was working on a customers computer that was in RAW and had no available MFT due to some sort of corruption. Recuva would continually hang in deep scan mode, and upon stopping the scan, some files would be visible, but were completely inaccessible / recoverable.

Analyzed every single drive one by one, and did a quick defrag on C: RAM usage was about 500MB by the end. /debug3 generated an 80MB file that contained an index of every single file on all of my drives, which i will not be posting up, sorry. Defraggler64.exe._1_17_172__2010_02_16_13_48_.txt

Defraggler's defrag engine is insanely slow in comparison to the competition. I pretty much gave up on defraggler after all the issues related to RAM usage and the insanely slow / unoptimized defrag engine that seems to take the longest route when placing files on a hard drive. I'm not sure why defraggler opts to move files to the bottom of the drive temporarily when it finds a small gap of a couple megabytes in between two sectors. Rather than plugging up that gap with a song / a few files, it decides instead to move the next thousand sectors to the bottom of the drive, then re-order everything one by one. Not only is it slow, but it literally yields no performance increase and only serves to elongate defrag times. BTW i have a 400+400GB RAID0 array as well, and i experienced the same thing. My drives can burst at over 360MB per second, yet defraggler takes an eternity to defrag. It took 15 hours to defrag a 1TB hard drive, whereas diskeeper took 1.5 hours, whilst removing ALL fragments. Defraggler left a couple fragmented files behind.

Not sure how to post debug information from Defraggler. Care to explain? Also the latest version of defraggler with the changelog "- Rearchitected memory management on Vista/W7." still has not made a difference to the memory usage. In fact, it increased slightly.

I was having some hanging / crashing issues with defraggler a little while ago as well, the issue was related to a problem file on one of my drives that was on a bad sector, and thus, could not be moved. This file also caused explorer to hang every time i attempted to read it. Ran chkdsk /r on the volume, let it make some corrects, and the issue was solved. I would suggest scheduling chkdsk on the drive to make sure there aren't any underlying hardware issues. 1. Start 2. Run 3. cmd 4. chkdsk c: /r 5. Don't lock handles 6. Scan after reboot 7. Reboot computer

His drives are spanned, which lets you combine multiple drives to form one larger drive without resorting to hardware RAID, i believe. Spanned HDD's do not have a drive letter aside from the initial drive.

Bought a new 1TB hard drive today, plugged it in, now defraggler boots up with 399MB of RAM usage. Kind of getting silly now... Would like an official response. After ONE single analysis, ram usage is nearly 500MB. So now we know that this bug is directly related to the number of physical hard disk drives that are currently active. edit: OK, i scanned each of my hard drives, now RAM usage is nearly 600MB.

Gronxx, you don't fully understand what's going on here. Defraggler isn't using more memory to work better or run faster. It uses more memory the more hard drives you have listed in the GUI. It's a memory leak... It doesn't affect your defrag times or stability. It's simply an issue caused by the number of drives listed. It's a bug.

Download CCleaner, run it, then head on over to Tools > System Restore. Get rid of your older restore points, or turn system restore off completely via control panel > system. They tend to eat up a lot of space and create large fragments.

New version of Defraggler, v1.16.165 x64, same memory issue persists.

There we go, MRIS knows what i'm talking about here. Here's what i get the second i open Defraggler:

I run RAID0, i can't disconnect a drive without destroying my array. Besides, why the hell would i want to do that? If MyDefrag, Auslogics Defrag, PerfectDisk, O&O Defrag, Diskeeper, and many more defragging programs run without any problems (excess ram usage), why should Defraggler be the exception? Furthermore, when i had Windows XP, i didn't have a RAID array. I don't think drastically changing my hardware setup is the right thing to do, considering Defraggler is the only program that suffers from this issue.

Superfetch is for Windows, not for specific programs, as far as i understand. Allocating 700MB of RAM to a program that calls on the standard defrag service in Windows doesn't make much sense. In any case, my previous thread, in Windows XP, i used to only have 4GB of RAM, and i experienced the exact same issue.

The exact instant i open Defraggler, it uses about 90MB of RAM, but that's only with one HDD visible. As more HDD's load into the list, Defraggler jumps to exactly 299MB RAM usage. If i re-open Defraggler, it doesn't reload the list of hard drives, but it instantly uses 299MB of RAM. Computer specs: Intel Q9550 CPU ASUS P5E motherboard GTX285 8GB DDR2-800MHz 4 HDD's - 2x400GB RAID0 (3 partitions) - 2x1000GB regular

Calm the hell down already. The MFT is a part of Windows, and is necessary to locate files on your hard drive. Without it, your operating system would not function. Depending on the age of your install (how long you've kept Windows for, without formatting), and the amount of files you have on your HDD, the MFT size can vary greatly. The MFT is dynamic, and as such, can start off very small, and inflate its size when required. So again, calm down, and move on.

If Defraggler is left open for an extended period of time -- For instance, if it's defragging a large drive, or if you simply minimize it -- It tends to use up huge amounts of RAM. This is just a quick example, however i've seen it hit 700MB+ While Defraggler is open: After Defraggler closes: http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showto...mp;#entry114130 I brought this up in 2008, in Windows XP. The issue has persisted over the year, through Vista, and now Windows 7... Would be nice if this got sorted already.

First and foremost, congratulations to Piriform for creating another awesome piece of software. One issue i have with Speccy, however, is that it doesn't show a processors "true" clock speed... EG, if someone is overclocking, or if you're using a laptop that downclocks the CPU to save battery life / lower temperatures. If you click the advanced CPU tab, it shows the correct clocks for each core, but the main summary does not. Was this intentional? In any case, awesome app. Keep up the great work!

I requested parallel defragging too, and i was instead told to use the command line version of Defraggler to set up a schedule for multiple defrags... Which didn't really achieve what i wanted in the first place -- But the Piriforum dudes don't seem to care about this particular feature. As for your second question: Open Defraggler > Click 'Analyze' > Click the 'File List' tab > Highlight everything with CTRL+A > Click 'Defrag Highlighted'

Quick tip -- You can actually "defrag" your USB by cutting ALL of the files off of it, then throwing them back on. The USB drive will become fully compacted and all extra fragments will be removed.

Why does Defraggler literally lock itself once it begins to defrag? I've got 4 physical hard drives in my computer, with the first drive having 3 partitions. The problem I have with Defraggler is that if I wish to defrag two or more physical drives separately, to cut down on time, I simply CAN'T do that... And on top of that, Defraggler doesn't have a scheduler... So if I want to defrag multiple hard drives, I simply cannot do so without having to be in front of my computer, babysitting it. I understand that defragging multiple partitions is bad -- But defragging multiple hard drives simultaneously has nothing but benefits. Will we ever be able to select multiple hard drives and defrag? P.S. I know that there are probably more important things in the works right now, such as a faster engine, boot time defragging, registry compacting, MFT compacting, optimized file placement, etc -- But being restricted to defragging ONE hard drive at a time is just plain silly.

After analyzing a few of my HDD's and defragging, Defraggler will suddenly use up a massive amount of RAM by itself... Here's a screenshot to prove: When i first open Defraggler, it starts off at about 6 or 7MB RAM usage, but as i mentioned, after a few scans and defragging a few files, the memory usage takes a huge jump. Here's Defraggler open (with RAM usage visible): http://i36.tinypic.com/73pkiu.jpg Defraggler closed: http://i36.tinypic.com/2nsp9pd.jpg Currently using Windows XP Home SP2.

I'm glad other people want it too

I understand this option exists. However, thumbnail caching is a good thing. As it provides you with faster thumbnail previews -- especially in large folders. The idea of clearing out our thumbs.db cache is to remove cache files from old photo's you don't even have anymore / folders you haven't opened for a long time.