Defraggler could be more efficient

[HotBit]

Defraggler could be more efficient, is leaving much to be desired. Leaves many files without defragmenting the end of the process, still some spaces that were already occupied by files and defragmented, are empty leaving gaps for new files may fragment in the middle of the unit. I like the product but is making me very unhappy.

[eL_PuSHeR]

How are you defragmenting? I usually defragment on-a-file basis, from the file list report. Maybe those files you spoke of are the System Volume Information files (Restore Points) that cannot be touched. I think there is some option under preferences to not include SVF in reports. Check it out.

[redhawk]

Defragging is performed by calling the Windows API library it doesn't matter whether you use Defraggler or any other tool they're all painfully slow due to the way defragging works.

 

When a file is defragged it is moved from one area of a disk to another but unlike file copy which is fast due to the buffering of many clusters defragging is done one cluster at a time.

Also if for example a file only has 2 cluster fragments at the end of 1998 contiguous clusters all 2000 clusters will be moved to another location.

This is one of the reason I never defrag files over 1GB with only 2 or 3 fragments, slightly fragmented files won't slow your computer down because the hard drive reads and buffers in internal memory faster than your computer can empty it.

 

As for the gaps left behind this is a consequence of moving files from one location to another you're never going to find something fragmented to fit it perfectly.

If you really want to close the gaps then use the "Defrag Freespace" option however it has to be said Defraggler's implementation seems to be a little unreliable so I would recommend you run a normal Defrag again.

And finally if you're running Vista / Windows 7 you should check this post to avoid unnecessary fragmented files.

 

Richard S.