Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums

Defraggler: Willy2's bug reports


Recommended Posts

- There's another thing that's "bugging" me. When I order DF to do a "Defrag Freespace" with a lot of folders added to the "Exclude" list then DF fails to do its job properly. By using this option DF will move selected folders\files to the beginning of the drive.

 

But when I let DF re-analyze that drive then it becomes clear DF didn't move every file (that should have been moved) towards the beginning of the drive.

 

- I use this option (Defrag Freespace") to move files located in a number of systemfolders ("C:\windows", "C:\users", "C:\Program Files", etc.) to the beginning of the drive. All other files are moved to the end of the drive. Keeping my HD organized this way, has kept my system running surprisingly smoothly, in spite of having my HD filled with a lot of files (only 17% free space).

 

- I would love to see that the folks at Piriform would issue a new version of Defraggler. I am looking forward to a new improved version of DF.

Edited by Willy2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

- Came across another bug in DF v2.21.

 

- I have a USB (v3.0) SSD drive of 500 GB that's being used to backup all important files that are stored on my HD (also some 500 GB in size). An SSD has no moving parts and that's an advantage over a USB HD drive. DF recognized that the filing system on the SSD is "exFAT". DF noted there were a number of fragmented directory files. I told DF to defragment those directory files and DF performed that task well. (at least, that was based on what I saw happening on the drive map).

- But now here's the problem. DF failed to determine the size of those directory files. DF said that the size of all those directory files were all 0 (zero) bytes. And I DO know the directory files were not zero bytes in size because some of those directories contained A LOT OF (large) files.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

- Came across another ugly thing that can be improved in DF v2.21.

 

- Unintentionally I added all the folders except one (or two ??) of my C: drive to the list of folders that were to be excluded from defragging. Those one or two folders contained about 60 MB of data. Then I told DF to "Defrag Freespace" my C: drive. It took DF some two hours to perform this operation. And that for a mere 60 MB of data !!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

I think, on that one, that perhaps freespace ignores excludes because it is only interested in space

Link to post
Share on other sites

- Makes perfect sense.

- But then I would expect that the feature "Move files to end of drive" would also take LOTS of time to perform that task. Seems that that feature ("Move files to end of drive") uses a different algorithm. Don't know what to make of it but the difference is too large to "remain under the radar".

 

(I use the program every day to keep all non-system files away from the beginning of the C: drive)

Link to post
Share on other sites

- Re-installed Win 7 SP 1 some 10 days ago and I am still busy moving files from selected folders (e.g. "c:\windows") to the beginning of the drive but DF isn't "cooperating too much". Because when I remove that folder from the "Exclude" list then DF does remove that folder (for a while). But after a new restart that folder is back in the "Exclude" list. It's driving me nuts. Talking about reliability. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ......................

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

- Found something else that can be improved. When the user has clicked on "Analyze" then I think the program should open the "File list" tab (either before or after finishing the analysis). Currently that's not the case. Now DF keeps the active tab (e.g. "Search", "Health") open.

 

- The behaviour, as descibed in the previous post, only occurs when I tell DF to save the settings in an *.ini file. I have done that because I have two copies of DF installed. Each with different settings (think:  files in e.g. the "Exclude"list ). See the attached file for a zipped up copy of that *.ini file.

Defraggler.zip

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

- Defraggler has also "a problem" when the user wants to try to specify the minimum and maximum size of files to be searched in the "Search" tab.

- I tried to enter the number "200" (MB) and "300" (MB) in the "size" fields but DF simply won't let me do that. When I tried to enter "200", DF turned that into "20". When I tried to enter "300" DF turned that into "30".

- It should be very simple to enter "200". E.g. clear the field, type a "2", a "0" and a second "0". But after I typed the "2" the cursor did not stay on the right hand side of the "2" but it moved to the left hand side of the "2".

- When the field contained "20", I tried to move the cursor one position to the right, to the right hand side of the "2". I was able to do that but DF "didn't like that" and moved the cursor back to the left hand side of the "2" within a split second. Even moving the cursor to the very right hand side of the "20" is impossible. DF simply won't let me do that.

 

(I hope this behaviour isn't caused by interference of some other program running on my computer system)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

- It turns out that the behaviour - as reported in the previous post - was indeed caused by interference of some other program. I tried to enter "200" and "300" (MB) today and I could do it without a problem.

- But perhaps it's possible to "insulate" the program more from interference of other software ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

- And yes, I found more things in DF v2.21 that can be improved in the next version. I don't know what the intentions are of the developers of DF but the program does show some inconsistent behaviour.

- The user can choose between 3 options ("Modern", "Original" and "Custom") on how the program displays the drive map with the defragmented and fragmented files. But only under the option "Custom" the user is able to change the colors (in the "Colors" tab) used in the drive map. What I would like to see, is that the user is able to change those colors for all 3 options (incl. "Modern" & "Original").

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

- There's another thing that's "bugging" me in the latest version of DF. I compared the behaviour of the program in 4 different languages (german, dutch, french and english) and the behaviour of the dutch version is different from the 3 other language versions.

- This "behaviour" problem shows up when the user uses the "Defragment" button. On this button there are two lines of text for all four languages. These 2 lines are fully displayed when the user hasn't selected any file/ticked any boxes in the list with fragmented files. In this regard the dutch version behaves like the 3 other language versions.

- The difference in behaviour shows up (in the dutch version) when the user has selected one or more files (to be fragmented) in that same file list. Then one line of text is fully displayed and of the second line only the top half is being displayed.

- See also the screenshots (inside the red boxes) in the attachments.

 

Defraggler-button10.png.496e5171657695bca7aaa124f115d33e.pngDefraggler-button11.png.4d663b7cde1f5fa95e6e45a8a88121b0.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

- Re-installed DF v2.22 today and the program still "doesn't get it". Although I switched the language (to dutch), DF didn't translate 2 text strings in the main screen of the installation program. They remained in english. Did the translator forget to translate these strings ? Bug in the program code ?

- This wasn't related to e.g. a missing *.ini file because I removed all DF related info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

- Piriform issued a new version of DF (v2.22). Instead of adding a "Privacy" tab (in the "Options" menu) the developers should have focussed on fixing a number of other things/bugs as reported in this thread.

- What hasn't been fixed and what "annoys" (to put it friendly) me the most currently is that DF is the following: When the user has chosen to store the DF settings in a *.ini file then DF doesn't store all (???) the changes the user made in the *.ini file. To make sure that these changes are properly recorded/stored I have to (manually) edit that Defraggler.ini file. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.............

Link to post
Share on other sites

- Another bug in DF v2.22. When the user wants to change the colors of the blocks then suddenly english words show up (instead of the proper dutch, french, italian or german words). These words are "More colors....".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...

- Another thing that can be improved in DF.

- I selected 2 files to be defragmented. After that the file list showed that those 2 files were in 1 fragment. But when I wanted to sort the list on the amount of fragments then DF still thought that those files are still fragmented and have the old amount of fragments. In other words: DF doesn't update the amount of fragments internally. See also the picture attached.

Screenshot_6.thumb.png.8888881eec1d295f762f4ab6c0c5e4ee.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

- When using the "Defrag Freespace" the program moves files from selected files to the beginning of the drive. But it seems the program doesn't do its job that well. The program then also moves files to the beginning of the locigal drive from folders that were excluded.

- I see that e.g. happening with video files that I Always keep at the end of the (logical) drive as much as possible. I then have to (manually) move those files towards the end of the drive (again).

- My guess is that somehow the internal variables are not well enough "protected".

Link to post
Share on other sites

- Another odd thing Defraggler. Somehow the program thinks that one file ("Verezonden Items.mbx")  has ZERO fragments. Any other file has 1 fragment or more but this one has "0" fragments. See also the picture in the attachment.

Zero-Fragments1.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

- Found another example where DF thinks that a file had zero fragments. See the red Arrow in the picture.

 

 

Screenshot_74.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

- Something is wrong with the memory management of DF and I think that the memory management can be improved.

- There is a difference between the info provided by Sysinternals' RAMMAP and Task Manager (Windows 7). When I look at the "Process" tab in RAMMAP then I count 13 DF processes (red Arrow & red rectangle). But when I open (the dutch version of) Task Manager (blue Arrow & blue rectangle) then I only see one process ("Defraggler64.exe"). The amount of memory used by DF (Task Manager) doesn't match up with the amount of used memory by DF as displayed in RAMMAP. Odd, very odd. These 12 extra DF processes don't use much memory but there are running anyway. Again, odd, very odd.

 

- Recently I watched a video explaining how the program called "RAMMAP" worked. They mentioned the words "zombie processes". It seems the extra DF processes (as shown in "RAMMAP") are precisely that, "Zombies". The video also gives a (possible ???) explanantion of why these zombies exist.

The video can be found at

https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Defrag-Tools/Defrag-Tools-6-RAMMap

The word "zombie" is mentioned a few times in the video from about 21:00 onwards.

- Sysinternals' RAMMAP can be found here:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/rammap

- See the picture attached.

 

 

Defraggler-RAMMAP1.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

- After using DF for a while the amount of "Zombie processes" (see previous post) - as exposed by RAMMAP - reached the level of 38 instances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

- Have been using DF today again and when I opened RAMMAP I saw 43 DF "Zombie" processes ("Defraggler.exe") while Task Manager showed only one process called "Defraggler64.exe".

- It seems that somehow the process "Defraggler64.exe" opens "Defraggler.exe" and uses some of the subroutines and then "forgets" to tell the Operating System that the process has done its job and the process can be "closed"/"removed".

- This also can be a bug in the program code. E.g. "Defraggler64.exe" has all the subroutines it needs to perform its tasks but still calls upon "Defraggler.exe" every now and then. This could be a remnant of a previous Defraggler version before there was no 64 bit version of the program. Lots of possibilities on why so many Zombie processes show up.

- When I look at the size of the 43 DF "zombies" then I see that these Zombies actually don't use that much memory. RAMMAP reports that each of these 43 processes only use 20 Kb. Seems each of these processes are opened/created but then these processes each are hardly used/don't see little or no "activity". And - in general - one can say that the more a process is being used the larger the memory footprint. There the low memory usage could give a good indication of what's going on.

- Another thing I noticed is that as soon as I close DF the zombie processes (seem to) disappear away as well. Odd, very odd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

An admin has notified Piriform about those zombie processes. Just letting you know that your posts aren't being ignored!

Link to post
Share on other sites

- I have seen that my bug reports (plural) were used to improve the Piriform programs in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

- Ran both Defraggler and RAMMAP again today and saw 102 (!!!) instances of "Defraggler.exe". I.e. 102 DF zombie processes.

Edited by Willy2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Defraggler doesn't properly sort the numbers in the "Fragments" column in the "Search" tab (red arrow). Today I came across a telling example. In the 1st picture below there are 5 *.mp3 files of which 2 are not fragmented (blue arrows). These 2 files are the 2nd and 3rd file from the top of the list. When I click on the "Fragments" header (red arrow) then the program doesn't sort the list. It simply turns the "Fragments" list upside down (see 2nd picture). This is also confirmed by the sizes and names of all 5 files. Clicking on that header for a second time the list reverted back to its original situation (first picture).

naamloos1.png

naamloos2.png

Edited by Willy2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...