tsvk

To add to my previous comment, it occurred to me now afterwards that it could be even more meaningful to calculate and display the median file fragment size instead of the average file fragment size, and then to identify the most problematic files using that metric. Calculating the average fragment size of the files is blindly distributing the total file size evenly onto all fragments, absent any better more specific knowledge of the size of the fragments. But I assume that after a completed disk analysis, Defraggler knows exactly how large each fragment of a particular file is, i.e. it knows the distribution of the file data among the file fragments. From this analysis data, it is probably possible to figure out the median file fragment size (= the size of the middlemost file fragment, when all file fragments of a file are sorted by size), which is a more representative metric than the average.

I came to this forum to suggest the same feature. Nice to see that someone else has had the same idea! To restate the issue in my own words from my perspective: Sometimes I don't have the time or possibility to do a full defrag, so I would just want to defrag quickly the files that are the "worst offenders". In order to find the worst offenders, I insepct the grid in the "File list" tab after the analysis, and sort the files by either the "Fragments" or the "Size" columns and from those sort orders I defrag manually the 10-30 topmost files. But as user lacc noted, the largest files or the files with the most fragments are not necessarily the most problematic files. The most problematic files are those files whose average fragment size is the smallest. So if Defraggler could show a new column in the grid of the "File list" tab that displays the average fragment size (the total file size divided by the number of fragments the file is split into), then sorting by this new column would clearly bring out the files that need defragmenting the most.