Other Software > Found Deals and Discounts
Paragon Total Defrag 2009 For Free - Powerful but controversial
Carol Haynes:
Thanks - it is downloadble but to be honest I am pretty happy with Perfect Disk 10
Shades:
First of all I'm sorry for venting, but...
[rant]
I used to pay for DisKeeper (until version 8 or so), my main frustration with that one was that I have to have 15% of harddisk space free before defragmentation could took place.
Given the harddisk sizes of today that is a sizable chunk of space (for example: 30GByte on a 200 GByte disk/partition!!!!). The stupidity of that rule baffles me to no end. I have been around PC's long enough to know why that rule was put into place, but today that rule is insane.
With today's 1Tbyte drives i am not allowed to use 150GByte, because my defragger won't allow for it?!?
Denying me a 'snappy' system just because I use the total capacity of my hard disk?!??!
Do you have (an) contiguous file(s) of 150GByte in size on your disk? The biggest single file I have seen was 35Gbyte (Oracle database file).
Because the file size of the biggest (fragmented) file on a harddisk and equivalent free space on a harddisk should be the only reason why defrag software isn't able to start. And even that should actually not be a reason to start defragmenting the files that do fit in the available free space.
In that sense most defragmenting software has a lot of growing up to do.
Not the software from DiskTrix though. The harddisk in my system is an IDE WD Caviar with a capacity of 160GByte capacity (unformatted, 149GByte formatted). Directory Opus reports that this disk has 2,3Gbyte of free space or 1.5% free.
DiskTrix starts without any problem.
If Perfect Disk would commence to defragment my disk all the power to it, but my guess is that it either will not commence or will be painfully slow because of all the (literally) grinding work. DiskTrix commences without problems and it will take quite some time because of the amount of files, but it goes on without complaining.
Furthermore, how often is defragmenting required? DisKeeper was setup to run every night when I was asleep and still the results were not that great. Defragging every night puts (quite) some wear and tear on the disk. Nowadays I have scheduled the defrag software to run once a month.
[/rant]
It is just the stupid archaic rules required by this kind of software and the lack of results that drives me insane >:(...and which make me a (very) happy Disktrix user. :)
f0dder:
I'd personally (probably) never use any software by DiskTrix.
Anybody remember the trick they pulled with "WE OMG KNOW SUPER SECRET TRIX TO MAKES YOUR XP 500% FASTERER! BUY NOW!" ntfs compression scam? And the user interface giving you the impression that they actually do some über-special physical placement and know disk layout is bordering ludicrous, imho.
Shades: AFAIK, the "15%" is just a rule of thumb, not a hard limit. And it's my feeling that the important thing isn't really 15% but has more to do with the size of the files on the disk, to avoid thrashing too much by moving stuff back and forth. But sure, while all NT defrag applications use the same defrag API, they can go about planning in different ways.
Carol Haynes:
Perfect Disk works fine for me - I have even defragged a disk with less than 1% free without problem.
f0dder:
Perfect Disk works fine for me - I have even defragged a disk with less than 1% free without problem.-Carol Haynes (April 05, 2009, 06:46 PM)
--- End quote ---
Works fine for me (although I always have a few gigabytes free before defragmenting - if I know there's a bunch of temporary files (or stuff I can burn out to DVDs, etc) on a partition, I always do that before defragmenting).
PD does seem to be a bit slow wrt. NTFS compressed files, though - I'm not sure they're as much of a performance improvement (:P) as DiskTrix claimed - especially because they very easily get fragmented. Oh well :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version