Defraggler versus Microsoft Optimizer

Defraggler Defraggler Bug Reporting
1

I carried out the latest Windows 10 fall creators update 1709 on my PC and encountered numerous issues, just like many other people. So I rolled back to my earlier version of Windows 10, for the time being, as it was problem free. Hopefully Microsoft will sort out all the bugs one day. 

The PC was also operating at a snails pace, after the roll back, so I did a C Cleaner clean up and then ran Defraggler, as I had not de-fragmented for some time, (several months), Defraggler reported 9851 Fragmented files, 33815 Fragments and 23% fragmented.


After a Quick Defrag, I was left with 7412 fragmented files, 27417 fragments and the same 23% fragmented state. Rather confused by this and after running chkdsk.exe/f/r from command prompt, which reported no errors, I decided to run a full defrag with Defraggler, which took about 12 hours.


At the end of this, re-analysis reported 5663 fragmented files, 21,954 fragments and 53% fragmented???? However, the drive map looked much tidier.


I then ran the Windows 10 disk optimizer, which initially reported the drive was 26% fragmented, but after all the defrag multiple passes and re-allocating, reported just 1% fragmented - a fully acceptable level of fragmentation.


Finally, I re-ran Defraggler analyser to check on the Windows 10 Optimizer result and the figures now reported by Defraggler were 115 fragmented files, 446 fragments and 12% fragmented drive?????


I did not carry out any further de-fragmenting and the PC is now running fine again. 


Can anyone throw any light on this very odd sequence of events, as Defraggler does not seem to be performing correctly and the built-in Optimizer in Windows 10 seems to do the job far better?


At this point, it would be hard to recommend Defraggler to anyone.


Has anyone else reported similar issues?

2

Different defraggers work to different algorithms, any two developers will have their own ideas about which is the best way to defrag.

eg. is it better to have files in contiguous blocks, maybe with gaps between them on the disc, or better to fill the gaps in the disc and let files become 'split up' over disc clusters? 

Different developers will give different opinions, and the defrag programme they write will give different results.

There is no one 'standard' way of doing it, that's why there are so many defragmenters to choose from. 

Choose whichever suits you. You won't be able tell any difference at all with actual computer usage. (that's with actual usage - not with using a different defragger to analyse in a different way).


The main reason for using different ones is simply the User Interface.

There's not much use using 2 one after the other, the second will just do its own thing; and undo what the first one had done.

As for why you ended up with more fragments after a full defrag with defraggler- did you use any advanced options? 

eg, a minimum file size or 'Defrag Freespace - allow fragmentation' option?

Why do different defrag programs give different results

3

Hi Nukecad

Delighted to get such a quick and well informed reply to my post. I used no advanced options with Defraggler. I only used the two basic options, Quick defrag or full defrag and let it do its own thing. 

On checking back over my post, I got one thing the wrong way round - the PC snail pace resulted from the Microsoft Update 1709 - after roll-back to previous update, the PC speed was normal. I simply did the clean-up and defrag to tidy things up after undoing the massive, bug laden, Microsoft update. I even had to run the Microsoft update repair tool before 1709 would install successfully on either of our PC's.

The only thing I did change before using the Microsoft Optimizer, was to allow Windows to manage the Page File size, which was previously set to 3 GB, (I think). I don't know if this would effect either defrag program, but the page file did occupy a very large number of sectors to begin with and now just 18.

Thanks for pointing out the algorithm differences between different defragmentors - (didn't know about that). I am not a power user, so will probably stick with Windows Optimizer in the future, but without Defraggler, I would not have known about the Page File issue, as Microsoft no longer show a drive map with their defrag tool.

I have used CCleaner for years and it's great - well worth the cost of upgrade from the free version. Not so sure about Defraggler, but will keep an open mind.

Thanks again

4

I've had no problems with 1709 on my laptop which is 3 years old.

It's going to depend on who made your computer, and just what is running on it.

I used to have a fragmented pagefile, and tried messing about with the MS settings.

In the end (after a bit of reading) I set it to let windows manage it and then did a Boot Time Defrag with Defeaggler.

You can't defragment the pagefile while it is in use so it needs to be done before.

All in one piece and no problems so left it alone since then.

5

Lucky you if 1709 works on your laptop - just look online at all the issues others are having. I had too many issues to list - so just did roll back.

Just out of interest - I did the update on my 32 bit PC and it failed - (3 GB download). Ran the update repair tool then updated again - (another 3 GB as it doesn't retain the earlier download).

Did the same on my wife's 64 bit PC - same problem, but at 4 GB a time on 64 bit.

We have to use mobile broadband in our rural location due to sub 1 MB/sec speed on landline and no fiber. This is capped at 40 GB per month, so very upset that MS cost me well over 25% of my monthly download allowance in just one day by pushing an update that is full of bugs and can't be used till they sort it out! If I exceed my 40 GB limit, it's £10 per GB thereafter - OUCH that hurts!

If it ain't broke - don't fix it.

6

in DF > Settings > Options > Advanced, make sure Stop VSS is ticked and click on the Define button and tick all its options.

7

Thanks for your comment. After reading the VSS discussion, it sounds like it could easily be the cause of the fragmentation increase. However, now it is resolved, I will leave well alone for a while.

I am retired and no longer a power user, so with regular full backups to a separate internal HDD, including shadow disk copies, I feel I am covered for most major issues - even HDD failure.

What a brilliant discussion group - thanks for all the help.

8

£10 - you must be in the UK?

I know all about crappy broadband living here in Cumbria. 

It might get up to 2 Mbps, but it's usually in Kbps.


(I am lucky that I live next to a pub and so can steal their crappy WiFi, with their permission of course).

When it's at its worst I forget it altogether and tether the laptop through USB to my phone. 

That way I'm using the phones 3G signal to connect, (doing it now), and the data allowance on my phone package.

The only problem I had with 1709 was the new 'Controlled folder access' in the Security Centre, which is supposed to be a type of anti-ransomware.

It was set to on by default with early updates to 1709, the first day or 2. (It is set to off in later updates). 

This blocked most 3'rd party (not Microsoft of course) software from saving (or deleting) anything at all in any user folders. (Documents folder, pictures folder, etc.).

Took me a while to work out what was going on.

9

Somerset, to be more precise, but used to live in Blackpool - used to water ski on lake Windermere, Cumbria, many years ago, (small world - even smaller when help with this topic arrives from Brisbane, Australia - very impressive).

I don't seem to have the Controlled folder access option, I assume that is because I had to roll back from 1709, but your comments noted, thanks, for when MS get it better sorted - will give it another try in a month or two, but check online first for bug fixes.

10
7 hours ago, Aeroguy said: 
<div class="ipsQuote_contents">
	<p>
		 (small world - even smaller when help with this topic arrives from Brisbane, Australia - very impressive).
	</p>
</div>

we do indeed live in a global community.

and a belated Welcome to the forums.

11

A bit pedantic but 'lake Windermere' is a bit of a misnomer. (So is the 'river Avon', look it up).

'Mere' means 'lake'. As in Windermere, Buttermere, Grassmere, Thirlmere, etc. 

The word mere designates a lake that is shallow compared to it's surface area.


Although in Cumbria it's probably more to do with where the settlers came from, mere (or <em>mare</em>) is latin, water (or <em>vatten</em>) is Norse, lake (or <em>lac</em>) is Norman.

Old trick quiz question - How many lakes are there in the English Lake District National Park? 

Answer - One. (Bassenthwaite lake). All the rest are either meres, waters, or tarns.

Go on then- there are 14 main bodies of water in the Lake District - Bassenthwaite Lake, Buttermere, Coniston Water, Crummock Water, Derwent Water, Ennerdale water, Grassmere, Haweswater, Loweswater, Rydal Water, Thirlmere, Ullswater, Wastwater, & Windermere.

There are numerous smaller waters and tarns.

Two of those larger ones, Haweswater & Thirlmere, are artificial. Valleys were dammed and vilages submerged to provide water to Manchester during the industrial revolution. 

Thirlmere actually 'drowned' 2 smaller lakes in the valley bottom.

12

Hi Nuke cad

I offer this quote from the Lake District National Park web site:

"Windermere in the Lake District - ten and a half miles long and 219 feet deep - is England's largest LAKE. Its name comes from the Scandinavian for 'lake of a man called Vinandr' ".

So they seem to think it is a lake and don't agree with your name derivation either.

You may also be interested in the derivation of your own unusual pen name - Nuke comes from the Nordic word for 'Born on a Council Estate', and Cad comes from the Anglo Saxon for 'Boring'.

Bye the way, these facts are also not correct, but would make for amusing pub quiz questions.

We are now getting away from the purpose of this excellent forum, so we had better end on this note.

Kind regards - hope this gives you a laugh and no offence meant.

13

off topic as all hell, but with the OP's instigation and with the problem sorted anyway, let's bring the 'community' back into this Community Forum.:)

looks like we need an Admin to change the Display Name of nukecad to 'Boring Council Dweller' - love it.:lol:

14

As we drift inexorably into etymological ruminations, please consider that these explications must evolve if they are to stay relevant.

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

:P

15
14 hours ago, mta said: 
<div class="ipsQuote_contents">
	<p>
		off topic as all hell, but with the OP's instigation and with the problem sorted anyway, let's bring the 'community' back into this Community Forum.<img alt=":)" data-emoticon="" height="20" src="<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/default_smile.png" srcset="<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/smile@2x.png 2x" title=":)" width="20"></p>

	<p>
		looks like we need an Admin to change the Display Name of nukecad to 'Boring Council Dweller' - love it.<img alt=":lol:" data-emoticon="" src="<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/default_laugh.png" title=":lol:"></p>
</div>

Love it too. rofl.gif.683edfaad261e6e95ed98a73ab3af323.gif

I've not got a council house yet, but I'm working on it.

Just for the record my online name came about because I was a Design Engineer working for Sellafield Nuclear site, using CAD software. 

I needed a username when joining an AutoCad forum - Hence Nuke CAD. I've used it on forums ever since.

(But that's not as much fun as Boring Council Dweller).

'Vinandr's mere' (or Vinandr's lake) over time becomes Windermere, that's fine. 

But you still shouldn't say Lake Windermere, although almost everyone does, that's using the word lake twice. I did say that it was a pedantic point.

PS. Did you look up the River Avon? 

Avon is an anglicised version of the Celtic/Welsh word 'afon' meaning river, -  The River Avon, so good they named it twice?

16
On 23/11/2017 at 10:25, Aeroguy said: 
<div class="ipsQuote_contents">
	<p>
		  
	</p>
</div>

OMG yes extreme similarities to yours with my experience yesterday fragmentation reported as 51% thats 36% worse off than Defraggler lleft it complete Job done If I hadnt checked it today what space would I have been left with if any? This despite following advice about advanced setup in options my remaining Harddrive space which still diminishes rapidly after a completed Defrag what kind of a shitstorm job is that? 

So on yer feckin bike Defraggler never again disturb me  with your absurd results <span><img alt=":P" data-emoticon="" height="20" src="<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/default_tongue.png" srcset="<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/tongue@2x.png 2x" title=":P" width="20"></span>

Screen Shot 11-09-19 at 03.13 AM.PNG

17

Screen Shot 11-09-19 at 05.20 AM.PNG

18

The issue I see with drive C listed in the above screenshot is the available free space of only 5%, most defrag tools do a lousy job if they don't have at least 15% or 20% free space available and some give up very early on in the defrag. The only defrag software I've ever seen or used that can work albeit very slowly without allot of available free space are the discontinued JkDefrag and it's also discontinued successor MyDefrag.

19

@Andvari this bloody issue was caused by Defraggler - the issue of abrupt loss of space!! And as I mentioned in a previous message I did all possible to configure DF in advanced options 

Furthermore DF didnt give me any hope of resolving that lack of space as I mentioned in my last It made me feel under siege to get a clear free space so I could install whatever programs needful

I had spend hours going through my main HD and finally I managed to get a decent chunk of space back (admittedly with the help of your Crap Cleaners Disk Analyser) 

But never ever again will I go near Defraggler to fix any problem -good night to it

20

@ElChabi:

- Run Antibody's WIZTREE. It will tell you the size of the folder called "System Volume Information". In that folder the System Restore Points are stored. That folder could be VERY large in size. That folder could easily occupy 50% or more of your disk.

- Solution ? Remove one or more System Restore Points. If that doesn't work then disable System Restore Points, reboot, and (if you want) enable System Restore Points again. That should free up A LOT OF disk space and could reduce the disk fragmentation.