I have a Core 2 Quad Q9550, 8GB of memory, and two 320GB 7200rpm drives in Raid 0. Operating system is Vista Ultimate x64. I turned system restore off and began a defragment, it's over 20 hours now and is still at 94% done. It's been at 94% for more than ten hours. I used the built in Vista defragmenter three days ago.
120GB defragged in 12hours, great job, very powerfull. Why should I use Defraggler? Windows Derfrag is many more better and faster.
Can anyone else confirm that disabling sys restore fixes slow defrag?MrRon
AFAIK the sys-restore system itself does not interfere with defraggler BUT
it does put a huge number and size of files into "System Volume Information"
where you cannot see them at all with Windows Explorer (or almost any other tool).
So, yes, delete all Restore Points (ONLY IF BACKED-UP!) before a big defrag
and don't forget to re-enable sys-restore afterwards.
Looking at the top of this thread, the image shows a DREADFULLY fragmented drive.
Defragging weekly or even daily is MUCH quicker each time.
As I explained in another thread, "1% fragmentation" can be highly misleading.
It can mean that 5,000 (of a typical half-million) files, probably all of the most
frequently used ones, are broken into a thousand fragments each!
Other common slow-downs are Antivirus (suspend on-open detection if possible)
and indexing services, especially "Copernic" "Google Desktop" and by far the worst
"Windows Search v4". IMHO these are NEVER worth running constantly, anyway.
I have a 120 GB HD, running win xp pro. One partition FAT 32. I ran defraggler 3 days ago, but after hours of staying at 34% defraged I stopped it . Now I can't boot up my computer even in safe mode. It won't boot up using the last good configuation. I did a fixmbr and fixboot with my winxp cd, and it still would not boot. I then used UBCD4 Windows.
I used a program called TestDisk (www.cgsecurity.org). It showed the MBR and Boot sectors needed to be fixed....so I did that. I can view my files in the root directory, but on deepere analyzing of each cylinder, there is a problem with the last 3 cylinders. I still can't boot up normally to recover my data......Any help or sugestions would be appreciated.
Mike in TN
I have a 120 GB HD, running win xp pro. One partition FAT 32. I ran defraggler 3 days ago, but after hours of staying at 34% defraged I stopped it . Now I can't boot up my computer even in safe mode. It won't boot up using the last good configuation. I did a fixmbr and fixboot with my winxp cd, and it still would not boot. I then used UBCD4 Windows.I used a program called TestDisk (www.cgsecurity.org). It showed the MBR and Boot sectors needed to be fixed....so I did that. I can view my files in the root directory, but on deepere analyzing of each cylinder, there is a problem with the last 3 cylinders. I still can't boot up normally to recover my data......Any help or sugestions would be appreciated.
Mike in TN
If you have bad tracks or cylinders on your HDD, nowadays it is best to just bin it because they cost UKP60 or less. You need to buy or borrow a USB/Firewire external disc to transfer your data, using UBCD. You can combine those with a "USB caddy" so that you can transfer an external disc to internal. If you have no money and can borrow an external disc, you could re-partition to avoid bad cylinders, but failing discs usually continue to fail and more bad cylinders will appear before long.
Fat32 is dreadfully unreliable. A single bit wrong in the boot sector can ruin the whole thing completely by making the next program overwrite the wrong FAT area. NTFS is only a bit better. The Linux Ext2 (or Ext3) system is far better. You can't boot Windows in Ext2, but there is a freeware "Ext2IFS" driver so that you can use it for a second partition with WinXP/Vista, to hold your big, valuable data. It doesn't suffer from fragmentation (hardly) at all. Unless you have a little Linux bootable partition as well, you can create and maintain it with a Linux CD system such as "Knoppix".
If you have bad tracks or cylinders on your HDD, nowadays it is best to just bin it because they cost UKP60 or less. You need to buy or borrow a USB/Firewire external disc to transfer your data, using UBCD. You can combine those with a "USB caddy" so that you can transfer an external disc to internal. If you have no money and can borrow an external disc, you could re-partition to avoid bad cylinders, but failing discs usually continue to fail and more bad cylinders will appear before long.Fat32 is dreadfully unreliable. A single bit wrong in the boot sector can ruin the whole thing completely by making the next program overwrite the wrong FAT area. NTFS is only a bit better. The Linux Ext2 (or Ext3) system is far better. You can't boot Windows in Ext2, but there is a freeware "Ext2IFS" driver so that you can use it for a second partition with WinXP/Vista, to hold your big, valuable data. It doesn't suffer from fragmentation (hardly) at all. Unless you have a little Linux bootable partition as well, you can create and maintain it with a Linux CD system such as "Knoppix".
Thank you MikeYates for your indepth reply. What program should I use to transfer my data, and can I use DVD media formated for Data with Nero to back up to?
Mike in TN
Thank you MikeYates for your indepth reply. What program should I use to transfer my data, and can I use DVD media formated for Data with Nero to back up to?Mike in TN
That depends how you intend to set up the new hard disc (are you buying one?) and how much IT experience you have. If you want the new disc to be an NTFS clone of your FAT set-up, with all your applications still installed, "ntbackup" which is included (in the Accessories/System Tools menu or to add as a feature) in XPpro but not XPhome is best. (If you have XPhome, you're supposed to buy the "Plus" pack but it already has all the dll's for ntbackup, you just need to copy the little ntbackup.exe from a pro!) Yes, DVD will do, but it may be tedious to divide your data between them in separate backups, each under 4.2 GB. One of them must be a complete working XP system, because the method is to install a bare XP on your new disc, then restore a full-system backup (must include "System State") to overwrite it. If you have a USB-hard-disc that is much easier to do in one chunk. Your system restored from your first DVD will have loads if issues due to missing bits, though returning to a restore-point, carefully created in advance, after they're all back, "should" work.
Another option is to install your new disc as a second drive (if there are cables for it inside - you haven't said if this is a laptop! - involving the master/slave jumper if not SATA) format it as NTFS and put a complete ntbackup onto it. Then remove the old drive, make the new one master and install a bare XP, carefully opting to use the existing partition, to do the restore.
Second best choice would be a Linux "tarball" backup and restore (with fiddly boot-sector work) and third, buy "Norton Ghost".
Don't be surprised to have to speak to Microsoft (at least a robot) on the phone before you cat get your XP "activated" again.
I love CCleaner, but something is wrong with Defraggler.
My issue...the defrag moves quickly through to ~90%. Then it just sits there. I left it on for ~20hrs. and it didn't move. I had to stop it after that but it never showed a sign that it was going to finish. The file names were changing but nothing else. The machine is a netbook (Samsung NC10) with a 160GB drive. The machine is only a few months old so the drive should be in very good shape. OS is a slimmed down version of XP SP3 (using nLite). System Restore and indexing service have never been on. Same goes for Windows Updates and the like (done manually only after personal inspection). I don't run antivirus software, never have, so that can't be a problem (and no I don't have any viruses or spyware issues I can assure you). There are some large applications installed (Maple, Matlab, OrCAD) and I do seem to remember seeing it going through OrCAD files while stuck at 90%.
I hope the team looks into these issues and finds a way to improve the application. To those that want to get defensive simply because the application doesn't perform for them as it should, please be quiet. You sound like a childish teenager that has little to no background in software development, computer architecture, etc.. If you did you would know that problems are suppose to be reported. This allows the development team to find problems, fix them, and make the application better for everyone (not to mention it provides them a purpose to continue having a job after the application is released).
Thanks.
Well I cant confirm that. Defraggler has been pretty fast with me
OS:XPSP3
Hardware: DELL OPTIPLEX 330
RAM: 2 GB
PROCESSOR: INTEL PENTIUM DUAL CORE 2.0GHz
hm... I think defraggler "grabs" the MFT Files too often - an Option to keep away from that Files where be a good thing.
Also an exclude option for Files with no extension like in a local CDDB (Music Database).
sorry my poor english
cheers
BTW: I use JKdefrag 3.36 & JKDefragStarter 1.18.2 completive - on the same Partition with the Option
"Move to END of Disk" he is quite faster (I think without the movement of the MFT Files?).
While Defraggler hangs for several minutes at 100% CPU Load at the same Function/Drive.
you can try smart defrag(free)...I like deflagger cause I have used their product ccleaner for years plus deflagger permits individual files to be defragged. full hard drive does take time, with smart defrag it takes very fast but not as thorough.
This is the first time to use Defraggler - I usually use Diskeeper on a daily basis.
I tried Defraggler because I want to use it to move some files (pagefile.sys) to the end of the C: partition. However, it takes extremely long! The C: drive is 1% fragmented, but after 4 hours the defrag process is only 4% - see attached image.
Is it normal that Defraggler is that slow?
[Defraggler 1.10.143 on Windows XP-SP3]
P.S. just checked Task Manager; so far it has done 375,000,000 I/O, running at near 100% CPU usage.
I have the exact same problem, but on only one of my hard drives it seems to be a problem with large numbers of small files in the gz and stg file's on my system which come from a CVS file store. I noticed that when I defrag my C: drive I have no problems the cpu is about 50% utilised however all my partitions are ok Except for one drive which contains many millions of tiny files such as *.stg *.xml *.btg all around the file size of between 1kb to 100 kb sizes. then the program seem's to get overwhelmed it causes extreme lags on my system and 100% cpu usage. I have had problems before with these particula files so I started archiving them and accessing them from dvd iso images which seemed to solve the problem at least in relation to defragging my hard drive, so most of the data such as simulator scenery data is now stored on DVD to avoid the problem.
However the data I now have on my hard drive is dynamic and must be updated on a regular basis via CVS Updates using Tortoise CVS and theirfore burning this data to a disk is not an option for me, My only option is to store this data on its own to a dedicated partition so that it does not get mixed with other important system files or large files, that need regular defragmentation to be done. Perhaps the Authors of Defraggler can look into why this is happening ?
All the best Chelley
Brand spanking new harddisk (WD Scorpio 320 GB), clean install of Vista 64-bit and a few GB of basic software (Office etc.). Core 2 duo @ 2.0 GHz
51% defragmented after certainly more than 24 hours of hard work (I've lost the count, went a few times in Sleep Mode in between -no, I didn't count those hours in the 24-).
It's also 'stuck' on the same percentage for +- 4 hours at least before moving on to the next percentage, and like other people have mentioned: the file names keep on changing, so it's still 'working' in a way.
If I had known about this before, I would have opted for the debug mode but now I'll just have to keep on waiting until it's finished without a debug log, I guess.
If I can be of any help with more information or whatever to solve this issue, just pop me a message.
continuing the thread: defragler takes forever on my computer.
Now hardware specs for those that blame computer:
Core i7 920 (2.66 quad core for those that dont know what that means)
1TB HD 7200 RPM
12gb ddr3 ram
gtx285
OS:
vista 64-bit
Harddrive state:
- only 382 GB used
- 190 GB (some 24,000+ fragment files) fragmented
- some 80,000+ total fragments
- 50%+ fragmented
it's been on for 12 hours and only around 40% done. not sure if this is normal. From resource moniter it is not running any of the cpu cores at max and niether is harddrive read/write maxing out.
any ideas?
It'd be cool if anyone wants to answer me via email.
wanted to try out defraggler because kotaku vote said it was the best. it is indeed liteweight, ofc I will be looking forward to seeing results. But not sure if how long it's taking is normal
just a note, i ran vista's built in defragmentation for about 15 min, turned off system restore, and went back to defraggler and now used space becomes 212gb with only 20,000 fragments (4.6 gb). much better.
still seems pretty slow though. ran for 10 min fragments went down by 20 in 20,000, 4.6gb -> 4.4gb
just a note, i ran vista's built in defragmentation for about 15 min, turned off system restore, and went back to defraggler and now used space becomes 212gb with only 20,000 fragments (4.6 gb). much better.
still seems pretty slow though. ran for 10 min fragments went down by 20 in 20,000, 4.6gb -> 4.4gb
hm - how many partitons do You have? One Big? I think that slows down any Operation.
At 1 TB I would't use min. 3 to 4 primary Partitions.
cheers
BTW: The older Version of JKDefrag64 http://kessels.biz/JkDefrag (+ JKDefragStarter Commandline-Generator
http://thommy88.th.funpic.de/jkdefragstarter-11-29.html can be fast. (The newer MyDefag is IMHO "un-handy").
KAS - I hope you said this in jest!!
I have a Made here in the USA top notch computer (besides the Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit), and I am having the exact same problem right now!! I have run Defraggler on multiple computers including installing it and running it on ALL of my clients systems, and this is the first time running into this prioblem. I will post my entire problem with soecifics in a seperate thread since I want to resolve it.
Eddie G
Well Pwillener, I suggest you dump your entire computer and buy another one. Not "made in Russia" is it ? Perhaps a valve set ?
Defraggler is the most invaluable program I have ever found on the net. It is super efficient, lightening fast in completing a defrag and absolutely trouble free. I simply cannot imagine how a company like Piriform can offer such a miraculous program as a freebie.
It is so versatile in defragging selected files or free space or the entire computer.
One guy on a Computer Forum said in answer to my Defraggler tributes - "I see no point in messing about with these kind of programs when Windows Defrag works just as well or even better".
This is the most crap statement I have ever seen. WINDOWS DEFRAGGER !!! This Sloth-like system takes 5 hours or more to complete. If you are over 30 years old, then forget Wndows Defragging - you just ain`t got enough life left.
My verdict is, if you are getting older waiting for Defraggler to finish, then the fault is at your end NOT Piriform`s.
Buy another set, life just may be easier for you, but don`t blame Defraggler for being slow.
Gosh man, the defrag is over in SECONDS !
Of course the members of this Forum may tell you where you are going wrong - that is what Forums are for - but going wrong you are. I have had superb response and service from Defraggler for years with NO trouble.
Seconds to defrag every time, whenever you wish to do it..
KAS
Just turned off Restore as everyone suggested and it deleted (hopefully) all those pesky restore points. I always run CCleaner (or Disj Cleanup) before running a defrag. My system is (using PC Wizard)and running the 64-bit version (not noted on summary):
Operating System: Windows Vista Ultimate Professional 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2
Report Date: Saturday 03 October 2009 at 07:50
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<< System Summary >>>
> Mainboard : EVGA 132-CK-NF78
> Chipset : nVidia nForce 780i SLI SPP
> Processor : Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650 @ 3000 MHz
> Physical Memory : 8192 MB (4 x 2048 DDR2-SDRAM )
> Video Card : NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
> Hard Disk : NVIDIA (1000 GB)
> Hard Disk : NVIDIA (600 GB)
> Hard Disk : ST340062 (400 GB)
> CD-Rom Drive : SanDisk Cruzer USB Device
> DVD-Rom Drive : HL-DT-ST BDDVDRW GGC-H20L SCSI CdRom Device
> DVD-Rom Drive : HL-DT-ST DVD-RAM GH22LS30 SCSI CdRom Device
> Monitor Type : Acer P241W - 24 inches
> Operating System : Windows Vista Ultimate Professional 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2 (x64)
> DirectX : Version 10.00
> Windows Performance Index : 5.7
Attached is snapshot of defraggler after 36 hours.
Defraggler is probably the slowest disk defragger I have ever used. Please fix this, it seems like a nice app if it worked.
Hello,
This is running very slowly for me too: Defraggler version 1.14.159; My laptop has a Core 2 T8300, RAID 0 hard disks, Vista Ultimate 32bit SP2. When running Defraggler is sitting near 50% CPU, practically occupying an entire core, which seems odd for what I imagined to be an I/O bound process (is there any polling going on?). I used Process Explorer to get a thread stack and these two appear quite frequently:
ntkrnlpa.exe!KeWaitForMultipleObjects+0xabc
ntkrnlpa.exe!KeWaitForSingleObject+0x492
ntkrnlpa.exe!KeTestAlertThread+0x78
hal.dll!KfRaiseIrql+0xd1
hal.dll!KeRaiseIrqlToSynchLevel+0x70
hal.dll!HalEndSystemInterrupt+0x73
hal.dll!HalInitializeProcessor+0xcc1
Defraggler.exe+0x20e29
Defraggler.exe+0xf1a02
Defraggler.exe+0x10a848
ntdll.dll!RtlEnumerateGenericTableWithoutSplaying+0x424
ntdll.dll!RtlEnumerateGenericTableWithoutSplaying+0x4a
ntkrnlpa.exe!KeWaitForMultipleObjects+0xabc
hal.dll!KfLowerIrql+0x64
ntkrnlpa.exe!ExReleaseResourceLite+0x161
ntkrnlpa.exe!KeSetEvent+0xb2a
ntdll.dll!KiFastSystemCallRet
Defraggler.exe+0xfcd49
SHELL32.dll!Ordinal264+0x3f1
SHELL32.dll!Ordinal236+0x4f2
iastor.sys+0x76f75
SHELL32.dll!Ordinal205+0x3a53
Defraggler.exe+0x120055
Like others here, defrag time is many hours. If this performance issue gets fixed then this will be a fantastic tool.
Cheers,
Chris.