Defraggler would be better with the choice of fragmentation reported with or without excluded files. As of now, it reports the fragmentation incl excl files, which is confusing, as there is still a % fragmented after a run when u want it to be 0. Also, right click could offer options to defrag incl or excl excl files, and which ones.
Also, if defraggler would watch its CPU usage and stay below a set(table) %, and perhaps take its affinity one down if overusing, this could be useful too.
Those advanced features could be set standard/basic and only unlocked if user chooses advanced mode, so to keep it simply for the ezpz users.
Defraggler would be better with the choice of fragmentation reported with or without excluded files. As of now, it reports the fragmentation incl excl files, which is confusing, as there is still a % fragmented after a run when u want it to be 0.
Couldn't agree more. The current behavior is rather puzzling. Doesn't including excluded files in the measurement make it an objectively worse indicator of whether it's time to defragment?
Also, if defraggler would watch its CPU usage and stay below a set(table) %, and perhaps take its affinity one down if overusing, this could be useful too.
Any advantage to this approach over using process priority? (I can only think of one: if total CPU usage was the concern rather than the performance of other processes.)