Other Software > Found Deals and Discounts

Paragon Total Defrag 2009 For Free - Powerful but controversial

<< < (5/7) > >>

MilesAhead:
There's a lot you can do just by using the windows command line
defrag C: -b
on ocassion to defrag boot files (still works in Vista or at least it does something with no error even though it's no longer documented) and a quicky like Auslogics.

Thing is if you can keep a lot of free space, it's not a burden.  Esp if you can delete a bunch of large files right before the defrag(like DVDs you've just burned) then a defrag can take 10 to 15 minutes.  I wouldn't defrag 10 times a week if it took me an hour each.

My scheme has always been to do a thorough defrag once in a blue moon to position files, then the quicky defrags tend to clump onto what's already in place.  When running with mostly free space the thorough defrags aren't really needed.  Esp. with boot file prefetching in Vista once you have a stable boot setup defrag boot files and it comes up pretty quickly(compared to Vista not defragged that is, not compared to XP.) :)

Shades:
@f0dder:
The placement of files you can regulate in some sense. However, you also can use the layout.ini as is generated by Windows itself, so starting programs and booting goes fast.

I agree that 400%/500% speed gain is over the top, especially in the way you just posted  :)
However, their help file shows a calculation that makes some sense.
From the example:
A typical EIDE hard drive from 160GByte has the following specs:
   - Read Seek Time:        8,9msec
   - Latency:                   4,2msec
   - Full stroke seek:       21,0msec  (from center till the rim of the platter)
   - Track-to-track seek:   2,0msec
   - Transfer rate (max): 750Mbit/sec

The average Access Time for this hard drive is 8,9 + 4,2 = 13,1msec
The minimum Access Time for this hard drive is 2,0 + 4,2 = 6,2msec
The maximum Access Time for this hard drive is 8,9 + 4,2 = 25,2msec

Between the slowest and the fastest access time there is some 400% performance difference.
They also go by the following rule: 80% of the time you use only 20% of the files.

Those 20% of files are stored on the outer edge of the platter as the data transfer rate there is more like the promised 750MBit/sec, while the other 80% of files are stored near the center where the data transfer is more like 400MBit/sec.

Maybe I am just plain silly (or naive) but the idea of data and software I use most, stored in the most speedy area of the hard drive, does sound plausible to me.

For me the DiskTrix software led to a system that feels as 'snappy' as a fresh Windows installation for the best price as well, free.  

For all intends and purposes I should send the help file, it expands a lot more about the reasoning behind their software and all of the possible options. Then again, I don't want to be regarded as a spammer  :D

f0dder:
MilesAhead: Windows' built-in defragger isn't very good, it's pathetic at dealing with low free diskspace situations. On Vista, they admittedly don't try to optimize beyond "keeping fragments at least 64MB in size" which kinda makes sense for regular Joe where an auto-scheduled defrag shouldn't be too disk-intensive. But consumer drives are way faster than 64MB/s today, and having to move the read/write heads is an awful speed hit.

Shades: I was referring to their NTFS compression scam, not the benefits of defragmenting. Imho the art of defragmenting is somewhat black magic, though... for instance, the access pattern while loading applications isn't necessarily linear, so you could probably gain more by grouping by read pattern than moving to the outer edge of the disk.

I'm so looking forward to cheap SSDs :)

MilesAhead:
f0dder I only use Windows defrag to defrag boot files, as I noted.
defrag C: -b

That's all it's good for.

bugis:
No defragger can actually specify physical placement of the files on the platter. The file system and storage hardware are not directly 'aware' of each other, so a defragger work only within the realm of the logical disk; it's the drive controller that decides as to which physical blocks are actually used for writing the data. Logically contiguous files may or may not be physically contiguous (but they should be pretty close I guess). Remember, the physical drive is not 2 dimensional although that's what the drive maps show. The HDD consists of more than one platter and more than one surface (and read/write heads) for storing data; so any claims of a defragger being able to write to a specific part of the platter should be taken with a pinch of salt.

As for Diskeeper, I use the 2009 Pro edition currently, and it has defragged my non-OS 250GB drive even with only 6% free space without any problems; it was in auto mode as I usually run it that way. The current Diskeeper versions work in low space quite well.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page