429 replies to this topic

[Ian Murphy]

Suggestion: An option to clear a block, or range of blocks, or compact files starting from the end of the disk.

Why: With everything going virtual I often find that I have a virtual disk which has 2-3 blocks occupied at the end of a, say, 100gb disk. If you want to reduce this disk down to a more reasonable 50gb which is closer to its in-use size then you have to clear all the disk from the 50gb mark up to the end of the disk. This is often blocked by a few kb of files. To clear these blocks can take hours of defragmenting.

Suggestion: Option to Distribute large files across the disk, or to leave them with xMb space after them for expansion.

Why: With SQL Db or exchange files the files are constantly growing. Given that you have chosen the option to move large files to the end of the disk. A 50gb, when it expands by 1Mb, that 1Mb will not be at the end of the file, so on the next run of defraggler it will have to move the whole 50Gb to fit 1Mb in at the end of the disk... not good. It would be better to be able to distribute big files across the disk, or to move them to a space with xMb free after the file.

I've suggested this before but never seen any reaction - positive or negative.

[Nergal]

Honestly, I wouldn't mind for there not to be a thread, as there is an entire subforum
http://forum.pirifor...hp?showforum=21

thus this thread is relatively redundant, as would be any "per year" thread .

[Artiom Jarcov]

Add defrag freespace and defrag freespace (allow fragmentation) and registry defrag option to the scheduled defrag feature in defraggler program.
Perhaps add options to do one of the following once even scheduled defrag of the current drive is complete:
- Close Program
- Log Off User
- Shut Down
- Restart

[equazcion]

Not sure if this was suggested yet, but it would be super-cool if we could defrag multiple drives at once. As long as they're separate physical drives, especially in a multi-core computer, it seems feasible, no?

[redhawk]

No, because the IDE/SATA controller would have to divide it's data bandwidth between drives meaning the total time spent defragging would be the same sequential as parallel.

Richard S.

[equazcion]

redhawk, on 27 May 2011 - 06:59 AM, said:

No, because the IDE/SATA controller would have to divide it's data bandwidth between drives meaning the total time spent defragging would be the same sequential as parallel.

Richard S.

My understanding is that would depend on the total available bandwidth of the controller, which is usually much more than the bandwidth that one drive on one SATA port can utilize (at least when we're talking about regular mechanical drives, perhaps not all SSD drives). Even a single 3G/6G SATA connection isn't fully utilized with platter drives, except in burst operations involving the drives' internal cache.

For proof, think of RAID striping, and how it produces speed benefits on any old home PC by dividing the workload of a file operation between two or more drives. RAID-0 writes to two drives at once, getting the same operation done generally in around half the time. If that's true then chances are there would be a performance gain from defragging drives in parallel.

[EraYaN]

Also I have 4 sata controllers in my system... just sayin..

[sniastdy]

Please enable "Boot-Time Defrag" in portable version too.
At next system restart, it will defrag the system disk during the boot time, it will remove any registry entries and disk files added for this operation and then it will load the whole operating system.

Thank you

[Earmack]

Hello,
My suggestion:

1. Add time, like we can see approximate time before finish
2. At this moment we have two PRIORITY options: normal & background (exaly I don't have any diffirent beetween), so maybe need add options like HIGH? To really be aggressive to system like example: RAM more usage (not 200-300mb like now) + CPU load ( at this moment 3-12%) 50% to make defraggler work more better & more faster.

[Nergal]

Quote

. Add time, like we can see approximate time before finish

This was not done as it is NEVER correct because the time amount remain for defrag (or really anything)changes and adds and removes (seemingly) haphazardly which in turn would result in many users posting to the forum "My Defraggler has said 3 min remaining for the past 21 hours)

[redhawk]

A higher process priority won't make a program run faster it just guarantees it gets more time executing code in case the CPU was being pegged by another application.
The reality is Defraggler can only work as fast the hard drive reads and writes changing process priority would have very little or no effect on the outcome.
For a quicker defrag don't run background applications that access the file system, having 2 applications fighting over for disk access would certainly slow things down.

Richard S.

[equazcion]

redhawk, on 11 July 2011 - 05:13 PM, said:

A higher process priority won't make a program run faster it just guarantees it gets more time executing code in case the CPU was being pegged by another application...
For a quicker defrag don't run background applications that access the file system, having 2 applications fighting over for disk access would certainly slow things down.

The process that gets higher CPU priority will indirectly get higher disk priority too -- the lower-priority applications will be running slower, so they won't be making as frequent I/O requests.

[pxxpandaxxa]

If possible, there should be a Time Remaining / Estimated Time of Completion.

[sgadecki]

Thanks to all who have contributed to the development of this fantastic program!  I use Defraggler for ALL of my defrag needs, and no longer use Windows XP default defrag as Defraggler works better every time!

The only suggestion that I have is when selecting "Replace Windows Disk Defragmenter" I would also love to have it replace the default windows defrag in the Win XP Computer Management window.  I know that Diskeeper and a couple of others have that option.  To keep the file size down for Diskeeper, this feature could even be implemented as a separate download as a "Patch" option.

We would need:

DfrgSnap.dll
DfrgUI.dll
dfrg.inf
Defraggler.msc

[nilesf]

I second deziner post on a Screen Saver option. Not everyone has their computer on at the set time in Defraggler. The idle option may not always works as there is lots of disk activity at play.



Niles

[quiz]

- Consolidate and move directory/clusters/file system structure (and MFT?) to the beginning of the disk
- Sort files by access time and move rarely used files to the end of disk
- Compact and defragment registry
- Clean/free and defragment memory (RAM)
- Feature comparison with other open source and commercial defragmentators

[kroozer]

quiz, on 02 February 2012 - 12:04 AM, said:

- Clean/free and defragment memory (RAM)

You can't defrag RAM. Even if it could be defragged there would be no performance improvement. And RAM is volatile -- all data is lost at reboot or power off.

[update]

Sometimes when a programm crash or someone power off the Computer without shoutdown, the data wont lost...

[kroozer]

update, on 06 March 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

Sometimes when a programm crash or someone power off the Computer without shoutdown, the data wont lost...

Omitting routine shutdown is irrelevant. SRAM and DRAM are volatile; the data can exist only with electricity, so powering off the computer terminates the memory.

Quote

Types of RAM Both static and dynamic RAM are considered volatile, as their state is lost or reset when power is removed from the system. Wiki
Deutsch-Wiki Arten von RAMs Die heute gängigsten werden hauptsächlich in Computern eingesetzt und sind „flüchtig“ (auch: volatil), das heißt, die gespeicherten Daten gehen nach Abschaltung der Stromzufuhr verloren.

[trium]

how is it with the possibility to defrag the pagefile from windows?

i have any trys to create one continuous pagefile, but xp (the pig, the black ) was not my opinion.

can something like this integrated in defraggler?