Xuefer
-
Posts
3 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Xuefer
-
-
small files are same but not affected because it's rare to stop defragment in the middle of small files
for a big file, each time you stop (not pause) and and defrag again on the specified big file, you start from 0%
this is not a display issue, say it already done 50% but when it re-do the remaining 50% it show 0%. it simply start over. i'm sure about it because i can see the drive map seeing that previous moved to, is still being read from
this is not only a stop/resume feature request which you may claim not supported, it's defrag poor speed which mean the whole file need to be moved to a whole new place even if there's enough space after the fragment
let's say, number=space, letter=data
fragment a=1 | b=_ | c=2 | d=3 | e=_ | f=_ | g=_ | h=other
i think is can and should only move 2 to b, 3 to c
but it move 1 to e, c to f, 3 to gright after it's done moving 1 i stop it, looks likea=_ | b=_ | c=2 | d=3 | e=1 | f=_ | g=_ | h=othersince f and g cannot hold 1 2 3, even if f g can hold 2 3, it decide to move 1 2 3 to else where start by moving 1 to some where -
Parallel support is nice, but simply remove the pre-condition check is wrong. like [removed brand name] and many others do, defrag on multiple partition on the same disk will slow down by making more seeks than necessary.
parallel on multiple disk basis not partition basis
Edited by nergal: removed competition name
use larger read block when moving files
in Defraggler Suggestions
Posted
benchmark shows my hd is capable of around 1MB/s 4k random seek read or(not and) write, while around 70~90MB/s sequence read or write
when defragging big files it looks like on random 4k reads a lot, HD tune monitor says 16MB/s which is better than 4k random seek but much worse than sequence read/write
can you please make it more sequence read for big files? and possibly take advantage of read-ahead/cache-warm-up something for small files