Jump to content

Defraggler extremely slow


Recommended Posts

If you have bad tracks or cylinders on your HDD, nowadays it is best to just bin it because they cost UKP60 or less. You need to buy or borrow a USB/Firewire external disc to transfer your data, using UBCD. You can combine those with a "USB caddy" so that you can transfer an external disc to internal. If you have no money and can borrow an external disc, you could re-partition to avoid bad cylinders, but failing discs usually continue to fail and more bad cylinders will appear before long.

Fat32 is dreadfully unreliable. A single bit wrong in the boot sector can ruin the whole thing completely by making the next program overwrite the wrong FAT area. NTFS is only a bit better. The Linux Ext2 (or Ext3) system is far better. You can't boot Windows in Ext2, but there is a freeware "Ext2IFS" driver so that you can use it for a second partition with WinXP/Vista, to hold your big, valuable data. It doesn't suffer from fragmentation (hardly) at all. Unless you have a little Linux bootable partition as well, you can create and maintain it with a Linux CD system such as "Knoppix".


Thank you MikeYates for your indepth reply. What program should I use to transfer my data, and can I use DVD media formated for Data with Nero to back up to?

Mike in TN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you MikeYates for your indepth reply. What program should I use to transfer my data, and can I use DVD media formated for Data with Nero to back up to?

Mike in TN


That depends how you intend to set up the new hard disc (are you buying one?) and how much IT experience you have. If you want the new disc to be an NTFS clone of your FAT set-up, with all your applications still installed, "ntbackup" which is included (in the Accessories/System Tools menu or to add as a feature) in XPpro but not XPhome is best. (If you have XPhome, you're supposed to buy the "Plus" pack but it already has all the dll's for ntbackup, you just need to copy the little ntbackup.exe from a pro!) Yes, DVD will do, but it may be tedious to divide your data between them in separate backups, each under 4.2 GB. One of them must be a complete working XP system, because the method is to install a bare XP on your new disc, then restore a full-system backup (must include "System State") to overwrite it. If you have a USB-hard-disc that is much easier to do in one chunk. Your system restored from your first DVD will have loads if issues due to missing bits, though returning to a restore-point, carefully created in advance, after they're all back, "should" work.

Another option is to install your new disc as a second drive (if there are cables for it inside - you haven't said if this is a laptop! - involving the master/slave jumper if not SATA) format it as NTFS and put a complete ntbackup onto it. Then remove the old drive, make the new one master and install a bare XP, carefully opting to use the existing partition, to do the restore.

Second best choice would be a Linux "tarball" backup and restore (with fiddly boot-sector work) and third, buy "Norton Ghost".

Don't be surprised to have to speak to Microsoft (at least a robot) on the phone before you cat get your XP "activated" again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I love CCleaner, but something is wrong with Defraggler.


My issue...the defrag moves quickly through to ~90%. Then it just sits there. I left it on for ~20hrs. and it didn't move. I had to stop it after that but it never showed a sign that it was going to finish. The file names were changing but nothing else. The machine is a netbook (Samsung NC10) with a 160GB drive. The machine is only a few months old so the drive should be in very good shape. OS is a slimmed down version of XP SP3 (using nLite). System Restore and indexing service have never been on. Same goes for Windows Updates and the like (done manually only after personal inspection). I don't run antivirus software, never have, so that can't be a problem (and no I don't have any viruses or spyware issues I can assure you). There are some large applications installed (Maple, Matlab, OrCAD) and I do seem to remember seeing it going through OrCAD files while stuck at 90%.


I hope the team looks into these issues and finds a way to improve the application. To those that want to get defensive simply because the application doesn't perform for them as it should, please be quiet. You sound like a childish teenager that has little to no background in software development, computer architecture, etc.. If you did you would know that problems are suppose to be reported. This allows the development team to find problems, fix them, and make the application better for everyone (not to mention it provides them a purpose to continue having a job after the application is released).



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

hm... I think defraggler "grabs" the MFT Files too often - an Option to keep away from that Files where be a good thing.

Also an exclude option for Files with no extension like in a local CDDB (Music Database).


sorry my poor english




BTW: I use JKdefrag 3.36 & JKDefragStarter 1.18.2 completive - on the same Partition with the Option

"Move to END of Disk" he is quite faster (I think without the movement of the MFT Files?).

While Defraggler hangs for several minutes at 100% CPU Load at the same Function/Drive.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can try smart defrag(free)...I like deflagger cause I have used their product ccleaner for years plus deflagger permits individual files to be defragged. full hard drive does take time, with smart defrag it takes very fast but not as thorough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
This is the first time to use Defraggler - I usually use Diskeeper on a daily basis.


I tried Defraggler because I want to use it to move some files (pagefile.sys) to the end of the C: partition. However, it takes extremely long! The C: drive is 1% fragmented, but after 4 hours the defrag process is only 4% - see attached image.

Is it normal that Defraggler is that slow?


[Defraggler 1.10.143 on Windows XP-SP3]



P.S. just checked Task Manager; so far it has done 375,000,000 I/O, running at near 100% CPU usage.


I have the exact same problem, but on only one of my hard drives it seems to be a problem with large numbers of small files in the gz and stg file's on my system which come from a CVS file store. I noticed that when I defrag my C: drive I have no problems the cpu is about 50% utilised however all my partitions are ok Except for one drive which contains many millions of tiny files such as *.stg *.xml *.btg all around the file size of between 1kb to 100 kb sizes. then the program seem's to get overwhelmed it causes extreme lags on my system and 100% cpu usage. I have had problems before with these particula files so I started archiving them and accessing them from dvd iso images which seemed to solve the problem at least in relation to defragging my hard drive, so most of the data such as simulator scenery data is now stored on DVD to avoid the problem.


However the data I now have on my hard drive is dynamic and must be updated on a regular basis via CVS Updates using Tortoise CVS and theirfore burning this data to a disk is not an option for me, My only option is to store this data on its own to a dedicated partition so that it does not get mixed with other important system files or large files, that need regular defragmentation to be done. Perhaps the Authors of Defraggler can look into why this is happening ?


All the best Chelley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Brand spanking new harddisk (WD Scorpio 320 GB), clean install of Vista 64-bit and a few GB of basic software (Office etc.). Core 2 duo @ 2.0 GHz


51% defragmented after certainly more than 24 hours of hard work (I've lost the count, went a few times in Sleep Mode in between -no, I didn't count those hours in the 24-).


It's also 'stuck' on the same percentage for +- 4 hours at least before moving on to the next percentage, and like other people have mentioned: the file names keep on changing, so it's still 'working' in a way.


If I had known about this before, I would have opted for the debug mode but now I'll just have to keep on waiting until it's finished without a debug log, I guess.


If I can be of any help with more information or whatever to solve this issue, just pop me a message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

continuing the thread: defragler takes forever on my computer.


Now hardware specs for those that blame computer:


Core i7 920 (2.66 quad core for those that dont know what that means)

1TB HD 7200 RPM

12gb ddr3 ram




vista 64-bit


Harddrive state:

- only 382 GB used

- 190 GB (some 24,000+ fragment files) fragmented

- some 80,000+ total fragments

- 50%+ fragmented


it's been on for 12 hours and only around 40% done. not sure if this is normal. From resource moniter it is not running any of the cpu cores at max and niether is harddrive read/write maxing out.


any ideas?

It'd be cool if anyone wants to answer me via email.


wanted to try out defraggler because kotaku vote said it was the best. it is indeed liteweight, ofc I will be looking forward to seeing results. But not sure if how long it's taking is normal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just a note, i ran vista's built in defragmentation for about 15 min, turned off system restore, and went back to defraggler and now used space becomes 212gb with only 20,000 fragments (4.6 gb). much better.


still seems pretty slow though. ran for 10 min fragments went down by 20 in 20,000, 4.6gb -> 4.4gb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just a note, i ran vista's built in defragmentation for about 15 min, turned off system restore, and went back to defraggler and now used space becomes 212gb with only 20,000 fragments (4.6 gb). much better.


still seems pretty slow though. ran for 10 min fragments went down by 20 in 20,000, 4.6gb -> 4.4gb


hm - how many partitons do You have? One Big? I think that slows down any Operation.

At 1 TB I would't use min. 3 to 4 primary Partitions.




BTW: The older Version of JKDefrag64 http://kessels.biz/JkDefrag (+ JKDefragStarter Commandline-Generator

http://thommy88.th.funpic.de/jkdefragstarter-11-29.html can be fast. (The newer MyDefag is IMHO "un-handy").

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KAS - I hope you said this in jest!!


I have a Made here in the USA top notch computer (besides the Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit), and I am having the exact same problem right now!! I have run Defraggler on multiple computers including installing it and running it on ALL of my clients systems, and this is the first time running into this prioblem. I will post my entire problem with soecifics in a seperate thread since I want to resolve it.


Eddie G



Well Pwillener, I suggest you dump your entire computer and buy another one. Not "made in Russia" is it ? Perhaps a valve set ?


Defraggler is the most invaluable program I have ever found on the net. It is super efficient, lightening fast in completing a defrag and absolutely trouble free. I simply cannot imagine how a company like Piriform can offer such a miraculous program as a freebie.


It is so versatile in defragging selected files or free space or the entire computer.

One guy on a Computer Forum said in answer to my Defraggler tributes - "I see no point in messing about with these kind of programs when Windows Defrag works just as well or even better".


This is the most crap statement I have ever seen. WINDOWS DEFRAGGER !!! This Sloth-like system takes 5 hours or more to complete. If you are over 30 years old, then forget Wndows Defragging - you just ain`t got enough life left.


My verdict is, if you are getting older waiting for Defraggler to finish, then the fault is at your end NOT Piriform`s.

Buy another set, life just may be easier for you, but don`t blame Defraggler for being slow.

Gosh man, the defrag is over in SECONDS !


Of course the members of this Forum may tell you where you are going wrong - that is what Forums are for - but going wrong you are. I have had superb response and service from Defraggler for years with NO trouble.

Seconds to defrag every time, whenever you wish to do it..



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just turned off Restore as everyone suggested and it deleted (hopefully) all those pesky restore points. I always run CCleaner (or Disj Cleanup) before running a defrag. My system is (using PC Wizard)and running the 64-bit version (not noted on summary):


Operating System: Windows Vista Ultimate Professional 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2

Report Date: Saturday 03 October 2009 at 07:50





<<< System Summary >>>

> Mainboard : EVGA 132-CK-NF78

> Chipset : nVidia nForce 780i SLI SPP

> Processor : Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650 @ 3000 MHz

> Physical Memory : 8192 MB (4 x 2048 DDR2-SDRAM )

> Video Card : NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280

> Hard Disk : NVIDIA (1000 GB)

> Hard Disk : NVIDIA (600 GB)

> Hard Disk : ST340062 (400 GB)

> CD-Rom Drive : SanDisk Cruzer USB Device

> DVD-Rom Drive : HL-DT-ST BDDVDRW GGC-H20L SCSI CdRom Device

> DVD-Rom Drive : HL-DT-ST DVD-RAM GH22LS30 SCSI CdRom Device

> Monitor Type : Acer P241W - 24 inches

> Operating System : Windows Vista Ultimate Professional 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2 (x64)

> DirectX : Version 10.00

> Windows Performance Index : 5.7



Attached is snapshot of defraggler after 36 hours.



Link to comment
Share on other sites



This is running very slowly for me too: Defraggler version 1.14.159; My laptop has a Core 2 T8300, RAID 0 hard disks, Vista Ultimate 32bit SP2. When running Defraggler is sitting near 50% CPU, practically occupying an entire core, which seems odd for what I imagined to be an I/O bound process (is there any polling going on?). I used Process Explorer to get a thread stack and these two appear quite frequently:





























Like others here, defrag time is many hours. If this performance issue gets fixed then this will be a fantastic tool.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the extra info. We are still looking into this issue, but are unable to recreate it on any of our test machines, but we will not give up :)



Thanks MrRon! So is the CPU low while Defraggler is running on your test machine?


If you need any more system info or if there's any way I can help out, then please feel free to give me a shout on the personal email I used to register this account.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also having these issues. It used to work fine a few months ago after a couple program updates and many Win64 updates . . .


I've been recently concerned with defragging my drive "D" hardware RAID 0 array running from an Adaptec 3805 single channel per device.


I have not disabled and deleted restore points etc as I don't have a complete backup at this time. All my virus scanning is disabled, as is indexing.


I downloaded PC Wizard to generate this report if it helps.


Owner: Microsoft

Organisation: Microsoft

User: boscoj

Operating System: Windows Vista Ultimate Professional 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2

Report Date: Thursday 15 October 2009 at 17:55


<<< System Summary >>>

> Mainboard : EVGA 132-BL-E758

> Chipset : Intel X58

> Processor : Intel Core i7 920 @ 2666 MHz

> Physical Memory : 12288 MB (6 x 2048 DDR3-SDRAM )

> Video Card : NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT

> Hard Disk C: Array SAS Disk Device (294 GB)

> Hard Disk D: Array SCSI Disk Device (1498 GB)

> Hard Disk R: RAM (2 GB)

> DVD-Rom Drive : TSSTcorp CDDVDW SH-S223Q ATA Device

> Monitor Type : ViewSonic VX2235wm - 22 inches

> Network Card : RTL8168/8111 PCIe Gigabit Ethernet Adapter

> Network Card : RTL8168/8111 PCIe Gigabit Ethernet Adapter

> Operating System : Windows Vista Ultimate Professional 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2 (x64)

> DirectX : Version 10.00

> Windows Performance Index : 5.9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similar problem with Defraggler.

1. Ran Quick Defraggler, which completed in about a minute.

2. Ran Microsoft defragger; completed in an hour.

3. Started Defraggler. It ran 3 hours and was at 40%, so I cancelled it. I have done this at least 3 times.


System is 1.86 dual core with 2GB RAM, Vista Home Premium.

Disk being defragged is 320 GB with 70 GB used and 250 GB free space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too Defraggler is very very slow. On top of that, the next worse thing is that you can only have one instance of Defraggler so you cannot defrag more than one partition at once, which is very very bad. I just recently downloaded it and so far I don't see the point using it even though I've heard it's a good app. This is pretty much what I do EVERY evening before going to bed:


- I use CCleaner to clean up my computer.

- I start AMP Winoff to get the computer to shut down in 45 minutes.

- I start three times Power Defragmenter, one for each partition (I have three).

- I set the partition level at Triple Pass defragmentation (defrag three times) for each instance and run them all at once.

- I go to bed.



This is my configuration:


Windows XP Pro

Processor: AMD Phenom II X4 955 3.2GHZ

Graphic card: XFX Radeon HD 4890 1GB 850MHZ



1st partition: 66 Gig, 39 Gig free space.

2nd partition: 409 Gig, 157 Gig free space.

3rd partition: 372 Gig, 187 Gig free space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there,


Just registered to say that I am having similar problems. I have used CCleaner for a long time now and so trusted Piriform to make a good defrag program. However, after 48 hours, I'm sitting at 25% complete and in the last 12 hours it has only increased by 1%. :blink: Fragmentation is 52%, just like it has been throughout the whole process.


My system is running Vista Home Premium 64 bit, my HD is 1 Terrabyte (with 300 GB used). For Kas' information, the machine is not Valve driven, nor is it Russian :P . It is, in fact, only 3 months old, has 12GB of RAM and is the fastest machine that I could afford back when I bought it. It runs every other program that I have asked it to at lightning fast speeds.


I have only just found out (by reading this thread) that the system restore points may be responsible so I will try disabling them. However, so far, Defraggler falls a long way short of what I hoped it would, which is a shame. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just DL this program also and am having the same speed issues

my system specs are



CPU Intel X6800 3.42 MHz

COOLING Zalman 9700

8gb Corsair Dominator @ 1067 2.1v


PS OCZ 700w

OS Windows 7 Ultimate X64 / XP Pro x32

HD's 3 X 320gb Barrcuda's Raid 5

WD 300gb VelociRaptor

Display's 2 21" Sony Trinitrons


I will try disabling system restore and see what that does

will let you know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, about 24 hours later and I'm still having problems. After disabling system restore and making sure that the restore points had all gone I restarted Defraggler. Initially I thought that things were going OK but the process got slower and slower. Each % complete seemed to be taking twice as long as the one before it. It is now 10.42 am and since 8pm yesterday, Defraggler has only increased its % complete by 3. ie 3% completed in almost 15 hours. It looks like Defraggler is not the defrag program for me. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Eliminated all but current restore point. This dropped used disk space from 70 GB to 34GB.

Microsoft Defrag ran in 45 minutes.

Quick Defraggler ran in seconds.

Full Defraggler ran to completion in 11 minutes! My problem is solved.



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.