why to run 3x to defrag to 3% fragmentation?

[kelpforest]

Why after the first run of defraggler the result says 3 fragmented files and 3% fragmentation.  Then upon immediate restart there really is 40+ fragmented files and up to 8% fragmentation.  I repeat this up to 5 times and finally the restart fragmentation percentage matches the end of the previous run fragmentation percentage.  I'm running this on a i7 laptop with W10.

Is there a way to defrag once and be done?

[nukecad]

Defragging the full disk can actually fragment some fies as it tries to fit them into the smallest number of clusters it can.
So as you found you can end up with more fragmented files than when you started.
Full disk defragmentation is not needed so much with todays larger capacity disks.

Once you have done a full disk defrag if needed on an untidy disk, then the best way in future is to do a 'file defrag' for normal use rather than a full disk defrag.
It's also a lot quicker.

A 'file defrag' gets the files into one piece each, rather than what is traditionally called defragmentation (but which is really disk consolidation) which tries to free up as many whole clusters as possible.

What most people want these days is to have their files in one piece each and not worry about a bit of unused empty space in some clusters.
And that's just what a file defrag will (attempt to) give you.

See the third option "To defragment multiple files:" here: (Once you've used it you'll soon get the hang of it).
https://www.ccleaner.com/docs/defraggler/using-defraggler/defragmenting-a-folder-or-file

[kelpforest]

33 minutes ago, nukecad said:

Defragging the full disk can actually fragment some fies as it tries to fit them into the smallest number of clusters it can.
So as you found you can end up with more fragmented files than when you started.
Full disk defragmentation is not needed so much with todays larger capacity disks.

Once you have done a full disk defrag if needed on an untidy disk, then the best way in future is to do a 'file defrag' for normal use rather than a full disk defrag.
It's also a lot quicker.

A 'file defrag' is actually consolidation of the files into one piece each, rather than what is traditionally called defragmentation which tries to free up as many whole clusters as possible.

What most people want these days is to have their files in one piece each (consolidated) and not worry about a bit of empty space in some clusters.
And that's just what a file defrag will (attempt to) give you.

See the third option "To defragment multiple files:" here: (Once you've used it you'll soon get the hang of it).
https://www.ccleaner.com/docs/defraggler/using-defraggler/defragmenting-a-folder-or-file

 

[kelpforest]

Thank you - I didn't know defrag had 2 flavors.  I will use the file defrag vs consolidation.   Suggest better description of this difference since it was there all the time and I never knew it.    Perhaps a button called "Defrag-files" and a "Learn more" button so people like me won't assume "Defrag" means "Defrag-files" only.  Again many thanks.

[nukecad]

Just to note that you will hardly ever have a fully defragmented disk, or files.

As soon as you have defragmented Windows will start writing files again, some of which will be fragmented.

As long as your own files, documents, photos, videos, etc. are each in one piece then it doesn't really matter.
(And TBH it makes very little difference even if they are fragmented, milliseconds longer to load at the most).

Most people, including myself, defrag much more often than is needed; it's habit more than anything else.

[kelpforest]

Thank you for your kind view point.  I absolutely agree that there is never a state of complete defrag as windows begins writing files.  I have 2 interesting points to make.

1-In the old days of Norton a defrag in W3 was a single choice and it didn't take that long and it looked like it did consolidation except it was only called defrag.  No one told me we now have a "consolidation" aspect.  As I recall defrag once was good enough as a 2nd time was a waste of time on a 3 megabyte disk.

2-For fun I did the File defrag 6 times and each time it got shorter till the process took less than a minute.  Then I rebooted and did file defrag again about 8 times.  At the start it took several minutes while I wondered where did all the defrag come from after reboot.  But again the process wound down to less than a minute.  My point being that the old days of doing once and being done are gone.  But defrag a few times may help and then -like you say- you and I defrag waaay more than necessary.

My disk performance is always more responsive after defrag which is the whole goal.  I can hardly wait till I get a SSD for really fast response in defrag and opening apps.

[nukecad]

The term 'Defrag' has always been used for both processes, it just which is more important for most users that has changed over time.

I know what you mean about running more than once to get things setttkes, TBH it's that long since I've had to do that because once it's done it originally then it tends to stay that way and only needs one run.
Of course if you run a full disk defrag that may/will fragment files again, best to stick with file defrag only.
(And don't use more than one defragmenter, each uses their own algorithms and tend to undo what the other does).

I got an SSD a month or so ago, but had a few problems with 20H2 on this laptop not formatting it (another machine with 1909 had no problem) so I'm waithing for 21H1 to try again before cloning/swapping it with my current HDD.

Quote

I can hardly wait till I get a SSD for really fast response in defrag

You should not normally defrag an SSD, you Optimise/Trim them instead.
Once you install an SSD just let Windows take care of Optimising it. (Windows 10 will also 'inteligently' defrag an SSD if/when needed).