I have a large drive (1.5TB) with lots of small files on it. Defraggler is using a lot of CPU (effectively pegging one core), and it's taking over 1 second to defrag each file.
I tried running the profiler on it, but since you guys stripped the symbols (why?), I can't give you anything interesting to go on... It seems to be spending a lot of time in EnterCriticlSection...
Slow file transfer with high CPU usage / interrupts could indicate the IDE controller is operating in PIO mode (not DMA) or the hard drive is pending failure.
Check your drive's SMART status using Speccy (or HD Tune) and see if anything looks suspicious i.e. Reallocated Sector Count > 0.
Slow file transfer with high CPU usage / interrupts could indicate the IDE controller is operating in PIO mode (not DMA) or the hard drive is pending failure.
Check your drive's SMART status using Speccy (or HD Tune) and see if anything looks suspicious i.e. Reallocated Sector Count > 0.
Richard S.
nope, the drive is definitely operating correctly.
i ran procmon.exe and it seems that one of defraggler's threads that is pegging the CPU is doing a GET_VOLUME_BITMAP after every file. i think this is related...
i'm going to run it under xperf to see if i can get anything more useful.
ok, i can't get anything helpful out of xPerf due to lack of symbols, care to share the PDB?
but it seems there are two threads which basically take turns pegging the core. almost all of the CPU time is spent inside the defraggler64.exe code, ie. it's not in kernel or other DLLs.
but it seems there are two threads which basically take turns pegging the core. almost all of the CPU time is spent inside the defraggler64.exe code, ie. it's not in kernel or other DLLs.
ok, one thread seems to spend a considerable amount of time looping through the items in the 'file types' dialog. it looks like it's doing this in an extremely inefficient manner: the 'lock xadd' in the following loop is causing the CPU to purge cache & sync in a tight loop. It looks like this is getting called for every file on the disk, for every file type in the types dialog. is that right? it would seem that moving the lock to a higher level would be a good place to start.
the other thread that's pegging the CPU is also looping through this list of file types. although it's a different piece of code. but it's also got the dreaded lock in a tight loop:
I'm also having the same problem with the most recent release of defraggler - are there any news on this? Defraggler estimates "> 1 day" for defragmentation (on a 500 GB drive)....
yep, this user is seeing unwarranted slowness since v 2.09.391 was released although the option to "quick defrag" seems to operate at more like the speed of the old release.
Sorry for wake up an old thread, but I have the same problem (high cpu usage, 1 core / really low defrag speed, few KB/sec or 1 file/1-3 sec). I'm using the latest version.
Sorry for wake up an old thread, but I have the same problem (high cpu usage, 1 core / really low defrag speed, few KB/sec or 1 file/1-3 sec). I'm using the latest version.
Any chance to fix it?
Many people do not have a problem.
If half a dozen people posted system specifications then common factors might become obvious for the developers to investigate, e.g. :-
Sys hdd : WD 1TB Caviar Blue / Sec hdd : 2x WD 640GB Caviar Blue @ Raid 0
The problem is system independent, at least hardware independent..
While defragging a partition I monitored it with HDTune and I saw something strange, after each file (from 10KB small to 1GB big) there is a 2-3 sec pause. While defragging small files ( <10MB) defraggler use 1 core of my cpu..
Why 3 sec pause after each file? Why use 1 cpu core while defragging small files ( <10MB) ?
Definitely there is a big problem in program's algorythm.. Please fix it, it is a good program.
does the fact you are running HDTune while defragging skew the result ?
what else is running ?
could your RAID 0 be adding an overhead as the data blocks span 2 drives ?
does the same issue happen in Safe Mode ?
for testing purposes, have you created another partition, copied some files across and ran DF on that, or on another PC for that matter ?
if it was still a big problem, I suspect there would be many more posts, so in the absence of those, you have to treat it as something particular to your setup.