Possible bug

[markem]

I attempted to defrag my C: drive the other day (after weeks of working to recover my system because of my own stupidity - and no - this problem is not because of my own stupidity! At least I don't think it is. )

 

Anyway, I noticed something after about 36 hours and wanted to pass it along.

 

I had set Defraggler to run, one time, a defrag of the C: drive starting around 3:00am and running until whenever it got fiinished. I was, at the time (midnight), copying some huge vido files (captured from one of my DVDs and I knew it would take a couple of hours for the copying to finish. So I go to bed and the next day I get up and Defraggler is still running in the background. (This is the df.exe program - not the GUI version.) Defraggler runs all that day, all the next day, and finally after about 36 hours had gone by - I rebooted the system.

 

After rebooting the system I brought back up Defraggler and almost nothing had been defragged. This is the weird part. Before I scheduled the job I took a look at the disk drive via Analyze. It was almost entirely red. After df.exe had run for almost 36 hours I was expecting things to be almost all blue. But no. It was almost all red. I had not done anything while I was waiting for df.exe to complete except run Task Manager so I could see if df.exe was still running.

 

So then I decided to just run Defraggler via the console program (or rather maybe I should say the GUI interface). It took about four hours for Defraggler to defrag the disk drive (320GB).

 

So that's the strangeness I ran into with Defraggler. Unknown why it did it - but I haven't tried it again via the scheduler since then (as I have six very large disk drives I need to defrag and I know the GUI interface works without a problem. I'm running 1.18 (updated last Friday).

 

Suggestion:

 

Defrag white space. Although Defraggler does a great job on defragging the files I can not find any option to defrag the whitespace. If it is there let me know but if not - this would be a great addition to what Defraggler can do.

 

The only other suggestion I would have comes from Norton's Speed Disk. Or rather the old Speed Disk Mac OS v8.0 had. That was the version of Speed Disk which gave true power into the hands of the user. You could select from putting everything at the end of the disk, the middle of the disk, the front of the disk, or even just certain types of things at the beginning, middle, or end. I would always put documentation at the end of the disk drive because any/all help files usually do not change very quickly. So plain text files, chm (or rather the Mac's version of chm's - forget what they were called now) would all go to the end of the drive while executables would be towards the front. Since I program, my executables would be read/executed faster and the compilers would also compile faster because they were at the front of the drive. All of the .h, .c, .pl, etc... files were all kept at the end of the disk drive.

 

Anyway - like I said - just some ideas. :-)

 

Next time I get paid I think I'll donate some more money. Can't afford much, but maybe $10.00 for each of the big three. :-)

[Aethec]

The free space defrag is in the Action >> Advanced menu

[markem]

The free space defrag is in the Action >> Advanced menu

 

Thank you!

[MichaelA]

 

Suggestion:

 

The only other suggestion I would have comes from Norton's Speed Disk. Or rather the old Speed Disk Mac OS v8.0 had. That was the version of Speed Disk which gave true power into the hands of the user. You could select from putting everything at the end of the disk, the middle of the disk, the front of the disk, or even just certain types of things at the beginning, middle, or end. I would always put documentation at the end of the disk drive because any/all help files usually do not change very quickly. So plain text files, chm (or rather the Mac's version of chm's - forget what they were called now) would all go to the end of the drive while executables would be towards the front. Since I program, my executables would be read/executed faster and the compilers would also compile faster because they were at the front of the drive. All of the .h, .c, .pl, etc... files were all kept at the end of the disk drive.

 

 

I loved this about Norton because I could put my volatile files at the end so the remainder of the disk remained unfragmented. Things like .txt, .doc, and so on would become fragmented at the end of the disk and were easily defragmented.

 

Mike