Defraggler priority settings

[Super Fast]

Defraggler could add 1 thing that would make it much more useful. Defraggler is a fast program of itself, usually. But a problem that I have is when computers get laden down with malware, then they are already slow, & sometimes I have to leave a couple programs running overnight because of being late when I am called out to begin with. They really need to be defragged, & I run CCleaner before I do the defrag etc etc, but what would really help is:

 

- Defraggler priority slider bar. Can change whether it is run in Low/Below Normal/Normal/Above Normal/High/Realtime priority.

- Defraggler CPU affinity selector. Can change whether it is running on 1 CPU, 2, 3, 4, etc cores

 

This may sound silly, but having multiple programs running can cause the drive to slow down as it tries to allocate resources to all 3 programs & CPU time to all of them as well. If there was just a way to set Defraggler to run on 1 CPU core & to run in Low priority, it would make things get done so much faster.

 

Ideally, a user would be able to save those settings. But it would be optional. Some users may not want to save it, but for those who do, should have the option to run it portably like that. Being able to set Defraggler to use the least resources possible would mean that the other programs could work faster & then defraggler could simply be finishing up later & everything would be done when you got back.

 

Of course, I thought of a way that they could add to Defraggler something that will let a user select programs that have to complete before Defraggler begins to run as well. User loads Defraggler, & it will sit & wait for certain programs to finish before it starts. But that might get tricky. So I think the best option would be to have a defraggler "slow downer" for computers where speed isn't needed at the moment.

 

Thanks!

[Guest]

You can set Defraggler to background priority.

 

If you have malware get rid off it don't live with it. Isn't the main bottleneck on defragmentation speed the hard drive rather than CPU? Use file defrag instead of the a full drive defrag and then you can get back to what you were doing faster. Schedule the defrag to start when the computer is idle or schedule it when you know you will finish doing your work. And why do the computers need to be defragged?

[Super Fast]

You can set Defraggler to background priority.

 

If you have malware get rid off it don't live with it. Isn't the main bottleneck on defragmentation speed the hard drive rather than CPU? Use file defrag instead of the a full drive defrag and then you can get back to what you were doing faster. Schedule the defrag to start when the computer is idle or schedule it when you know you will finish doing your work. And why do the computers need to be defragged?

Oh, I don't live with the malware.

 

But sometimes when I go out to help someone, their computer is very highly fragged. Certain malware can slow computers down... A lot. Even in safe mode. Certain hidden rootkits can login with safemode by attaching & injecting themselves into the windows system login dll & exe files.

 

Which makes them even harder to get rid of. Combine that with the fact that some users use their computers for years with no defrag whatsoever (check, very high fragment rates! And you have some verrrrrry slow PC'S!

 

Sometimes, I am not able to completely remove all the malware (some people have over 200 pieces of malware on their system!) before I have to leave. So I like to be able to let the antimalware programs run overnight along with Defraggler.

 

Having the capability of setting defraggler to run in low priority in the background without having to CTRL + ALT + DEL to open task manager & set it to low would be such a great time saver!

 

Thanks!

[Rob Defraggle]

I don't think the Background or Foreground priority makes much difference, because it is considering CPU, on an operation that is basically I/O bound for most of it's running time, so it would seem like cluttering the UI to offer things like CPU affinity, rather than leave it to the OS to schedule as it sees fit around other tasks.

 

If the O/S offered I/O priority and soaking "background idle I/O capacity" only; then that would make prioritisation more interesting.

 

This may sound silly, but having multiple programs running can cause the drive to slow down as it tries to allocate resources to all 3 programs & CPU time to all of them as well. If there was just a way to set Defraggler to run on 1 CPU core & to run in Low priority, it would make things get done so much faster.

No it's not silly, Server Admins of older OSes have known that it's faster to serialise I/O heavy jobs, as it minimises disk seeking and memory contention. Some would create 1 job wide batch queues, if it wasn't convenient to run the tasks from one Master control script.

 

On the desktop such tasks tend to increase latency, especially if they cause memory shortages, causing high level of paging. It's just far more complicated than slowing things by "using the CPU".

[Super Fast]

No it's not silly, Server Admins of older OSes have known that it's faster to serialise I/O heavy jobs, as it minimises disk seeking and memory contention. Some would create 1 job wide batch queues, if it wasn't convenient to run the tasks from one Master control script.

I won't argue with you on which way is "faster" for serial running.

 

But sometimes, I am in great need of having it like that because I don't have the option of serializing it at the moment & have to allow 3 or 4 programs to run overnight. Since defragmentation is a job that can take awhile, it's better that a user can select low priority & 1 core for it, to maximize the other apps so they finish faster.

 

Doesn't hurt to run defraggler in the background.

This would really help someone like me.

 

Maybe not you, because, let me guess, you always have time to serialize apps?

 

I did not mean it is faster because of disk I/O, but rather because I don't want to have to be there to wait for one app to run, then run another, then run another "sequentially" if you will.

 

Sorry for the confusion!