This sounds weird, huh?
It's meant for testing purposes.
I used a utility long ago similar to that. But I cannot remember if it was by Passmark...
Cool utility to test how well a defrag program works.
Example: Toss a few thousand files onto a blank partition of various sizes. Use fragger to fragment that partition. Test a defrag utility. Repeat.
May the best one win!!! LOL!
Edit: I had not noticed that it can also defragment. Will it outdo Defraggler? hahaha. Kidding!
This sounds weird, huh?
Yes it does, you really need to fragment your disk more often.
I've heard of fragmentation software before, and that's how many people test how well effective defrag software works.
Making the absolutely best defragger in the world would need a lot of effort and luck.
Making a second class defragger APPEAR to be the best in the world would be much easier,
simply give away free a fragmentation tool which creates a special sort of fragment chaos to which your second class defragger holds the secret key.
Making the absolutely best defragger in the world would need a lot of effort and luck.
Making a second class defragger APPEAR to be the best in the world would be much easier,
simply give away free a fragmentation tool which creates a special sort of fragment chaos to which your second class defragger holds the secret key.
You should write a book.
Hi All,
Haven't been on in a while and just ran across this post. Can a poor old illiterate member say something and my good friends are welcome to correct me. el, are you serious about this? The Mrs. and I manage to step on enough land mines to sometimes really disembowel the hard drive. I get nervous when it gets up to 6 or 7% and I head for the ole Defraggler like right now and so far it has served me well. Are we actually talking about adding more junk? It's like jumping out of a perfectly well operating aircraft. Thanks and a good day to all.
Warlock
Hi All,
Haven't been on in a while and just ran across this post. Can a poor old illiterate member say something and my good friends are welcome to correct me. el, are you serious about this? The Mrs. and I manage to step on enough land mines to sometimes really disembowel the hard drive. I get nervous when it gets up to 6 or 7% and I head for the ole Defraggler like right now and so far it has served me well. Are we actually talking about adding more junk? It's like jumping out of a perfectly well operating aircraft. Thanks and a good day to all.
Warlock
Yes, yes... And, yes!!! LOL!!!
Although, I am not talking about adding it onto your main partition. Just about using it on a clean partition.
Thus, you can add, delete, frag, & defrag files without abandon (or harm!!!),
* (I test for the sake of testing, & for the sake of knowledge). <- And also, because I am bored...
Warlock no you don't need to use this.
It perhaps is more used by folk who test defragging software.
You just keep doing what you are doing because you are doing alright
Hazelnut is correct.
There's no need for a regular user trying to maintain their system performance to dabble with a fragger on their main system, as it would only cause more frustration and possibly a very long time to defrag all the fragmented files caused by a fragger.
Indeed. As it has been stated before, it's just for testing purposes and probably aimed at someone who is programming/coding a defrag tool.
doesn't seem too popular, CNET has 140 downloads in total, PassMark has last release 3 years ago.
it's never accord to me to want to actually fragment a drive - even for testing purposes.
it's always been easy enough to find 'real files' to test the effectiveness of defrag software !
I think testing defraggers on a single file has little purpose unless trying to decide which defragger is fastest.
I really doubt that there would be much difference if each defragger "moves" the individual fragments into the correct sequence within an available chunk of free space,
because the sequence is self evident and needs no complex intelligent algorithms.
Try to fully defrag all files and all free space in a whole partition is a totally different ball game.
It would require the same "starting point" for each of the defraggers.
This would require the same fragments scattered in the same sequence within the same chunks of free space.
You would start with a badly fragmented drive, due to either prolonged operation without any defragging, or due to a fragmentation tool,
and a partition image backup created.
Then each defragger can be tested by :-
1. Restoring the backup
2. running the defragger under test (possibly more than once)
3. Observing the results and awarding points depending upon how long it took and how you like the end results.
Macrium is a good Partition image backup tool with its default settings;
it restores what was imaged.
I understand that Ghost and Nero would be less suitable with default settings;
they defrag as they restore,
and they place the MFT adjacent to the files before the free space instead of near the centre of Free Space as Microsoft recommends.
I think testing defraggers on a single file has little purpose unless trying to decide which defragger is fastest.
???
The "file" is a program that fragments, you aren't defragging a single file
Wow! Was this a popular topic. May I thank all of my good friends collectively for enlightening me? This certainly is the place to go for answers. You're all tops. Take care.
Warlock
???
The "file" is a program that fragments, you aren't defragging a single file
Actually when I said "I think testing defraggers on a single file"
by "single file" I was not referring to the fragmenting gadget,
but I was extrapolating to the logical conclusion of a single file instance MTA's statement concerning a plurality of files.
"it's always been easy enough to find 'real files' to test the effectiveness of defrag software"
doesn't seem too popular, CNET has 140 downloads in total, PassMark has last release 3 years ago.
Wow!!!! Wonder how many of those have been me? 5? 15? J/K!!!