Jump to content

Defraggler suggestions


Recommended Posts

Please, make possible to do defragmentation for all hard drives step by step. So I just put a mark in checkbox for C:\ D:\ E:\... and press defrag and program will dot defrag for C: fist, then for D: and etc.


It will be very handy so I enable all this and go for sleep, on the next day all will be done :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like one thing that might be real easy to put in. he option to automatically have the list of drives ?window? resized to display all of them without needing to scroll. In addition, possibly having the map resize as well automatically to where the info box/aria at the bottom is not being cut off, but is not taking up so much room by default.


Screen shot included for exactly what I am talking about. Also, my native resolution is 1680x1050, but I cut the start bar out and resized the shot.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a very quick gui improvement, I would prefer when I resize the window to see the disk visualization expand automatically instead of the file list. Currently, the file list expands to fill up the space, but if I maximize the window and then use the split bar to expand the size of the disk visualization (I like watching the colors while defragmenting :blink:), the size of the visualization remains fixed when I restore the window to its original size. That hides the file list and main buttons and chops off the bottom of the visualization whereas resizing the visualization (or at least setting a minimum height threshold to the file list to ensure that the buttons are visible) would be more desirable.

I'm giving my support to this suggestion.


Vorob's idea is also good, especially for those of us with several hard drives.


A personal wish for me is to be able to set aside certain areas of the disc for special purposes. For example a 10-15 MB extra free space next to large files prone to editing, like those huge texture files used by Steam games. Then you won't have to rewrite a full 2 GB file, just simply rearrange it a little. Also set aside a given area of the disc for internet cache for the individual browsers, so that the fragmented files won't go and settle all over my harddrive. Then they will be defragmented in one small part of the disc and be easy to defragment.

It would also be awesome if you could add the option to defrag folders. For example image galleries would benefit for this, if the reader doesn't have to jump over half the disc when fetching the next image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only joined this forum to ask for what "malikor" has asked for! I would love an auto shut down option.


Hello. I also ask for a "Shut down computer when done" option. I will make the program just perfect.


By the way, thanks for your great and amazing work from Venezuela.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to analyze my recently formatted exFAT flash drive and Defraggler crashed. I suspect that Defraggler doesn't support exFAT yet. I'm probably assuming this is either because exFAT is used by a small percentage of people, or because exFAT really doesn't require defragging due to bitmap caching. But then again who knows. Just throwing that out there ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kudos for a fine product. Will PayPal further kudos shortly. :)



An earlier post showed use of df.exe in scripts and how that would address several requested changes. I recommend you package/distribute that information in a ReadMe.txt file and include a sample script with your product. I looked for a ReadMe file and wasn't smart enough to grasp df.exe's use until I read your suggestions, above.



I'm mostly working with lightly-filled partitions at this time, and I noticed Defraggler uses the "end" of the disk when moving blocks/fragments aside. This seemed odd: placing temporary blocks there results in the longest cylinder-seeks while accessing those blocks. I'd think those blocks could be placed closer to the allocated space. The simplest starting location would be the first available/adequately-contiguous space after N blocks where N= the sum of movable and unmovable allocated blocks.



I agree with users who'd like their long-unaccessed files at the "end" of the disk, but (1) I wonder if there's any consensus on the algorithm, (2) you have to add a second defrag'ing algorithm to pack "upwards" to maintain that portion, and (3) users would create a re-construction event if they accidentally triggered any other defrag'ing s/w -- which would undue this specialized placement. Compound that with putting active-stable (long-unchanged but recently accessed) files first at the "front" of the disk, and/or placing start-up files together, and maintaining Defraggler becomes a nightmare, but more power to you if you can devise a method!



To the person who mentioned Defraggling their flash drive: I've read that defrag'ing 'flash drives is not recommended. I presume that's because -- if it is done regularly/frequently -- it could shorten the life of the drive (as they have a finite write-cycle life-time).



'Hope that made sense! Take care out there....


[Edit] PS: A couple of comments I never noticed a response to in skimming this thread


Someone wanted to defragment their Hibernation and paging files: I do this by

-- turning off both hibernation [Control Panel -> Power Options] and paging [system Properties -> Advanced -> Performance -> Advanced -> Virtual Memory]

-- rebooting

-- running defraggler

-- re-enabling hibernation and turning on paging with Custom Size [initial size=max size]

-- rebooting

and that's about as much as you can hope for. [Alternatively you could move paging onto another disk, then run Defraggler.]


Others seemed to want Defraggler to use another disk (w/ more free space) for move-aside blocks: I expect that's a no-no from the standpoint of minimizing file system damage in the case of an unintended shutdown. By staying in one partition you -should- be able to defrag' with near-zero chance of corrupting file integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I skimmed this section and I'm not entirely sure if the option does in fact exist, but I'd like to see a checkbox for "Shutdown computer after defrag is completed" option. It would do as it describes and turn off the machine. I usualy do defrags late at night after I'm done working with the machine...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi All!


I always enjoyed free software, and to me everyone, programmers and non programmer should give their contribution to the development of defraggler.



My suggestions are:


1) Automatic defragmentation of the hard disk, Defraggler could work in the background, and start desfragmentation as the hard disk needs.


2) A more sleek user interface like crap cleaner



Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok well here i go i will try my best to give the best suggestions i can to help you finish defraggler. ^^


1> one the screen when it is defragging just the files themselves and not the whole thing it needs to be able to minimize so if it does take a while we can do what we want without it popping up or staying on the screen.


So minimize button on single file fragmentation screen.


2> instead of just showing all the block allow the user to choose between the blocks or the single line with red lines blue lines and such like windows defrager for xp. or to fix it to show the whole drives squares rather than some of them. like a scroll down bar.


3> when a program is using a file instead of skipping it have a message display asking to skip or to wait till the process is complete to defrag the file.


4> the most important part so that every inch of the computer can be defraged since no other program would be running is to defrag on pc restart where its not starting up the pc all the way till it defrags the drive. like disk check how it wants to check the disk on reboot. <this way to help get mtf files and such since the system won't be using them. =].


restart defragging.


5> make a slow defrag mode which can use less memory so slow computers could easily use defraggler.


and thank you for defraggler so far =].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some suggestions:


- In the help section, give an explanation of what each type of defragmenting does, and why a user might want to use each type.


- On the Drive Map Legend, explain what the light blue dots on the drive map mean (they're not listed on the drive map legend).


- A scheduling option that runs the program every X days (i.e. right now, there's no way to run the program every 4 days if that's what one wants -- only daily or weekly, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I first experienced Defraggler while trying to search for a counterpart for my commercial defragger. A counterpart which can do the things the other(s) can't. As time passess Defraggler unquestionably becomes my second hand for everyday fragmentation. Like many others complaining here for Defraggler to become a FREEWARE Diskeeper or PerfectDisk(my other hand), I'm totally opposed to see Defraggler becoming a CLONE-BLOAT Defragger with many many features yet less effective...


Like most can't do their jobs without "both" hands, now I can't manage defragging using PerfectDisk "in conjunction" with Defraggler knowing their weaknesses and powers, using one on another to eliminate all weaknesses in defragmentation. Although seems impossible to use two together, I have different partitions for different needs and I use Perfectdisk for one, I use Defraggler on other and both on another. Results are more satisfactory using either product alone if you know how to use them properly. Because on the hands of an noob, the two defraggers algorithm differences can really mess up any hard drive being PerfectDisk an Optimizer and Defraggler a Defragger...


For all those trying to drive Defraggler to become next freeware Diskeeper by their "suggestions":

*) If you like background set-&-forget defragging; buy Diskeeper (or clone) and leave Defraggler alone...

*) If you like optimized layout weekly-monthly defragging; buy PerfectDisk (or clone) like I do and leave Defraggler alone...

*) If you like to sort/order whatever your files to your "needs"; buy UltimateDefrag (no clone) and leave Defraggler alone...

*) If you like FREEWARE defragger with "optimizations" in multi-passes; use JKDefrag + many easier Front-ends and leave Defraggler alone...

*) AND if you like Defraggler and defrag ONLY those file in need; please continue to use Defraggler and don't let it become another clone!...


Don't get me wrong, I like and use Piriform products but I must add if Defraggler to become a commercial defragger CLONE, one should prefer a Defragger from a company who specializes in disk related technologies rather than Piriform, because the more they invested R&D in their defragging technologies the more they perfected their algorithms and such. Being a NKOTB, Piriform can't go that far without being a commercial non-freeware program. I might be wrong but during past decade I don't see much freeware beating their commercial brothers. Once they do they'd been acquired to become commercial. Sad but true...


Now my suggestions that I'd like to add or emphasize:

*) Shift/duplicate "Menu", "Right-click-menu" approach to buttons or so on the UI since it's annoying and RSI-inducing making more clicks than you really need to do (Menu=2 clicks, Button=1 click). Meaning "Defrag Drive/Folder/File", "Options", "Priority" and etc. all can be integrated to the empty spaces in UI saving many clicks...

*) Shift Options, Choice lists and like to a new "tab" after "Drive/File List/???" tab-control on UI...

*) Use proper keyboard tab-jumping (mouseless usage) which jumps among controls but not on filelist...

*) Include basic "Help" for the noob defining basics and Defraggler's approach in its modes of defragmentation...

*) Replace whatever non-standard filelist control that you're using to program to a better one since current filelist columns can't be switched with one another like normally can... (I don't like check/filename/fragments/size/path order but check/fragments/size/filename/path customization better)

*) Adjustable colors of "Map Legend" for color blinds and customized choices...

*) An option to defragment chosen file to a "single fragment with cost of fragmenting others" can be good. No need for optimization yet moving out the files (even with fragmenting) occupying the space required for single fragment should be sufficient...

*) And lastly; "average fragment size" is somewhat a must in filelist columns. Average fragment size=Size (of file which is in columns) / # of fragments (of file which is also in columns). IMHO average fragment size is much more crucial than the total # of fragments per file. As this has been suggested before, I'd like express it one more time with another example:


Say you've got a DVD to fill and burn or something similar. Then say you have to fill 4400mb(approx) with 100mb per file (say video clips) 20 fragment per file which results in 5mb average fragment size resulting a total of 880 fragments to burn. The burn will mostly go smoothly even when you're are multi-tasking since average chunk size is sufficient enough...

880 chunk = 4400 dvd / (100 mb / 20 frag)


On the other hand say this time you have many quality wallpapers to burn, 4400mb per DVD, 1mb average per file and 2 fragment per file which results in 0.5mb average fragment size resulting a total of 8800 fragments to burn. This is 10 times smaller fragments per file BUT 10 times greater # of chunks to burn. The burn will probably be susceptible to speed losses, lossless re-linking, no multi-tasking and such...

8800 chunk = 4400 dvd / (1 mb / 2 frag)


If current numbers are working for you, a scenario where more fragments to burn with least per file fragmentation won't burn can be found. In short one should realize that:

Importance of Average fragment size > Importance of # of fragments

And all I ask is another column in filelist view showing this critical number per file...


And for the pro-con of the past comments on suggestions:



Defraggler is defraggler & Diskeeper is diskeeper. Different products for "different" needs unless you want Diskeeper for free...



Boot time defragging is included in optimization based defragger which is somewhat beyond defraggler scope...

(refer:davey's comment, or davey's comment)


@genusis, Ruyfe, Jenzz, MarcusVR, Viclick, Spectro

+1 for minimize (not necessarily tray) (or at least non-modal)...



Defraggler is defraggler & you can choose other prototype defraggers using that approach rather than Defraggler. Don't demand Defraggler=Diskeeper or so. Also UI is as sleek as it is now IMHO...


@arch0nmyc0n, xavi, Steve(spt), Skywalker1, adoc, Garetiem, Ng LC, Astrial, joexoxeoj, Nismo, blonddan, xaeroevo, Adicted

+1 for shutdown...



+1 for observations & +1 for no-no condition. Yet refer "Davey's Comments" (up 4) where Defraggler seems a Defragger but not necessarily an "Optimizer". For the flash drives; simply move (fragged) flash content to hard disk and then back to flash again. Unless using 3rd party file manager/copier, you'll see files become "less fragmented" only in 1 lifecycle...


@ Arthemax

You're looking for an "Optimizer" (refer "Davey's Comments" (up 5)) and also unless you're using the "right" software, most programs simply opens a file and rewrites it somewhere else rather than "appending" like you expected where also other defraggers fail to optimize.


@1031982, xray, colorplane

+1 for resize problems



In theory maybe. There are three; 1) Like you said to leave inactive (no/least defragging) where after some time disk head will have to be more active jumping among fragments (contradictory) and overall speed will be affected. 2) Use an "Optimizer" defragger which causes most wear where after done linear disk reads cause least wear compared to previous jump also speed increases. 3) Defraggler approach: See what file is fragmented to what degree and "ONLY" defrag those truly in need which ensures balance among previous approachs...



+1 for all drives yet why not "simultaneous defragging" for partitions located in "different" disks?



+1 for file dates column in file list yet again another "optimizer" request, please refer "Davey's Comments" (up 9)...



+1x3 for all your suggestions; total files, percentage ...



As you have partially observed, multiple passes can (not must) decrease further fragmentation. Mostly don't if you're using the way I do. Defraggler is defraggler and JKDefrag is JKDefrag which is well known for its capabilities and "Multiple Passes" please use "that" so. Yet IMHO multiple passes is useless in between "Optimization" (PerfectDisk) and Defragging (Defraggler) approaches because you are to spend much time and wear as "optimization" yet obtain "close to" optimized disk...



For all those who'd love/like to pinpoint/control where their files should be: use UltimateDefrag. No other defragger does the job so close up to now and leave Defraggler alone. Defraggler is defraggler and UltimateDefrag is ultimatedefrag... ( I lost the count I reversed this ;-))



+1 for select folder to defrag all files/subfolders which is available on right-click...


@Tem, Dillon

-1 for delete. "Open containing folder" option presented in Defraggler is good enough for this...


@lnminente, yuri

+100 because "average fragment size per file"-column will be more useful than "total # of fragments"...

small explain now. you have file 1000 mb with 100 fragments and file 10 mb with 10 fragments. first file have in 10 times worse (numerically/in theory) fragmentation but each fragment have 10 mb size (at the average), second file have 1mb fragments. if first file is just movie (or anything)- this is not very big problem, if second file some system file or small video (or anything) - this is bad.



+1 for portable (ini) approach yet if Defraggler is like CCleaner, it may insert many CLSID's in the registry..



+1 for nonlisting defragged filenames yet another "optimizer" request. Referring "Davey's Comments" (up page) and seeing the way Defraggler works, it "aims" "MINIMIZING" fragmentation in shortest time, which is somewhat the opposite approach of "Optimizing" file places which takes much longer time. Defraggler is defraggler and Optimizers are optimizers. Go use one another instead or in conjunction with defraggler...



-1 for wanting Defraggler=Diskeeper. Defraggler is defraggler & Diskeeper is diskeeper. If you "love" that than "use that" and don't demand a price-free Diskeeper out of Defraggler. If you're set, write a defragger for your needs since basic defragging instructions of NTFS are from Micro$oft. Also -1 for most of your comments. If you loved Diskeeper that means you've used it long enough to love which means you either bought it or used it illegally. If you "own" it than use it & leave Defraggler alone, or if you're a Warez user than don't try to judge others actions, that's just hyp..... Also don't talk about before Google'ing or Wiki'ing about what you're talking about; different users have different usage patterns so different needs from a defragger(s). Optimizers are useful than you imagined yet this isn't the place for that (also those milliseconds "adds up" unlike you grasp (also @JDPower))...


@Dillon, Neil Parks, Quatermass, StOrMw1nD, malikor

-1 for registry defrag for now until Defraggler becomes best of what it can be (hopefully not another Diskeeper, Perfectdisk of JKDefrag)...


@xray, Wooltown, Nismo, Jaelani, wchil, Rotzooi, GlowSplint, Shresht

+1 for exclusion/ignore list depending on name, extension, date, size, folder etc...



+1 for inclusion list depending on filename list columns parameters...


@luik, Jaelani, ne1scott, rumcajs, m@tt, nazgand, galileo, canorro, CactuS, hairbutt

Leave Defraggler alone and get an optimizer defragger (if not for free then spare some bucks) (refer Davey's comments up page)...


@Neil Parks, yuri

Comment at once yet not in sequential "fragments"???


@equazcion, eremit, Phonomania(+), ladiko(+), Nismo(+), khokkanen

+1 multi-threading in multi-core yet on different disk simultaneous partition defragging ;-)...



+1 for

My own rule of thumb: if the defrag takes longer than an hour you need to do it more often. If it takes less than 10 minutes, defrag less often. You don't want to waste a lot of time in order to save a little time. Do the defrag during a quiet period, such as when you're away from your desk for a meeting, or after hours. In that way you don't waste productive time.


@StOrMw1nD, Nismo

+1 for priorities which is already on the latest Defraggler...



+1 for distributing a non-recently-used big file among fragmentation gaps yet this is the job for a Optimizer where we're talking about Defraggler...



-1 for secure defragging???. Defraggler is defraggler & Drive Scrubber is drive scrubber. Simply find & use a drive scrubber (with government wipes) which perfectly fits your needs...



+1 for "always analyze before defrag" option...



+1 for UI suggestions...



+1 for

p.s. if this programm don't kill my disk and don't lost some files - it great program!



+1 for almost all but reorder and optimizer requests. Defraggler is defraggler & UltimateDefrag is ultimatedefrag, please use that (or Diskeeper) and leave Defraggler alone and dkafyr...



+1000 for seeing "The Light" in Defraggler where other "clone" defraggers don't possess...

I'm not in favour of any moves which would take Defraggler in the direction of being a PerfectDisk or DiskKeeper clone - strategic file placement, offline defrag, real-time defrag and so on. The beauty of Defraggler is that it is a small, resource-light program that performs a specific function superbly well - homing in on just the fragmented files. In my view, once the GUI has been more or less perfected, little further development will be needed.

Quote is for all who wants price-free Diskeeper out of Defraggler...



+1 for Explorer Shell integration for selecting individual file defragging...



+1 for Estimated Time of Arrival...


For all those who don't like my comments, feel free to do so. It's good to have many different opinions for the progress for Defraggler. ;-)...



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Although you are welcome to the forum cr1t1c, it was a heck of a long first post quoting just about every comment ever made about Defraggler.


Perhaps more people will be inclined to read your posts if you keep them a lot shorter please.


Support contact





Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
how about an option to turn off the computer, close the program etc when completed?

You can do it with the command line version then just call for shutdown which is built into Windows via a batch file or script.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


- Added 'Move files to end of drive' feature.

- Added 'Save settings to ini file' option.



at least once a day : to think different ;o)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello there, I am still an amateur user since I've only had my PC for about 6 months. Yet, I have also used Defraggler for 6 months... I also registered JUST so I could be in the forums ;)


I have a few suggestions:

1. The 'Defraggler' window looks like it was made in the 90's (no offense). I know that visual doesn't matter but I THINK it could boost up the download counts.

2. When you're defragmenting files, wouldn't it be better to know when the defrag is actually going to finish? I suggest an ETA after each file

3. I want to have it defragment my Paging File (please disregard this if Defraggler already does)

4. I also want to have Defraggler show a percentage of fragmentation (if possible, down to the hundredth)

5. It could show the disk usage of each file like TuneUp Utilities Disk Explorer (image in attachment)


Thank you for your time :rolleyes:



Link to comment
Share on other sites



1. The 'Defraggler' window looks like it was made in the 90's (no offense). I know that visual doesn't matter but I THINK it could boost up the download counts.

I like that look and it is quite efficient in both its display and update speed.


2. When you're defragmenting files, wouldn't it be better to know when the defrag is actually going to finish? I suggest an ETA after each file

I guess that would be good if you had a super computer and many files to defrag. I have neither and usually less than 200 files to defrag that takes less than a minute.


3. I want to have it defragment my Paging File (please disregard this if Defraggler already does)

I use PageDefrag but once it has run then unless the amount of RAM is changed then it is not necessary to run it again:


"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." - Albert Einstein

IE7Pro user

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.