Jump to content


Defragger 1.04 Slow


5 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   andyr

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gateshead, United Kingdom
  • Interests:Programming and Online Gaming

Posted 30 October 2008 - 07:22 PM

Hi,

I have just performed a clean install of Windows x64 with all the system drivers and windows updates. I have installed the latest CCleaner, Defraggler and Recuva.

Again with Defraggler, there seems to be a large slowdown near the end of the defragmentation process.

These are the stats of the drive containing Windows installtion after analysis:

  • 5,358 Fragmented Files (2.7GB)
  • 26,264 Total Fragments
  • Capacity 465.8GB
  • Used 4.3GB (1%)
  • Free 461.4GB (99%)
Defraggler has had major slowdown on the last 5-10%, which as far as I can see is defragmenting smaller files from the current status view.

Currently, I have been defragmenting the following, and it is currently over 1 hour do to this:

  • 67 Fragmented Files (97.4MB)
  • 138 Total Fragments
The large files on the drive seemed to be defragmented really fast, however the current files being defragged such as files of the following extensions:

  • pnf
  • dll
  • ico
  • mp3
  • wav
  • cat
  • html
  • gif
  • jpg
  • xml
  • inf
  • sys
These files seem to take far too long considering that these files most of the time are below even 2MB in size. Also, most of these are in the Windows installation directory.

The defragmentation process is also taking up 100% of a single core on a quad core CPU. Very low disk activity and hardly any HDD light flickering.
Andrew.

#2 OFFLINE   andyr

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gateshead, United Kingdom
  • Interests:Programming and Online Gaming

Posted 31 October 2008 - 10:31 AM

Well,

100 views and no response, strange.
Andrew.

#3 OFFLINE   YoKenny

    Super Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,874 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oshawa, Ont. Canada
  • Interests:Helping people get rid of malware on their systems then showing them how not to get re-infected again

Posted 31 October 2008 - 12:35 PM

View Postandyr, on Oct 31 2008, 06:31 AM, said:

Well,

100 views and no response, strange.
Not many people have Windows x64
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." - Albert Einstein
IE7Pro user

#4 OFFLINE   MrRon

    Official Piriform Bug Fixer

  • Admin
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2008 - 03:35 PM

Can you identify any particular file that is causing the slow down?
MrRon

#5 OFFLINE   andyr

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gateshead, United Kingdom
  • Interests:Programming and Online Gaming

Posted 31 October 2008 - 09:00 PM

Hi MrRon,

I will run the defrag process again, and see if I can get a quick glimpse at some of the files which are slow at being defragmented.

I did only look at the extensions on the first run, cause I though that would be of more help.

I will post back soon with more information.
Andrew.

#6 OFFLINE   andyr

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gateshead, United Kingdom
  • Interests:Programming and Online Gaming

Posted 20 April 2009 - 02:13 AM

Hi,

I have been doing a lot of testing lately, especially relating to how slow Defraggler can be with defragmenting small amounts of files, and amounting to small sizes.

I have found a way in which the development people may be able to reproduce the problems.

I am currently running Windows Vista x64 SP1 Home Premium.

The easiest way to reproduct:
  • Download and Install Steam Client from VALVe to a seperate Hard Drive or Partition.
  • Launch Steam and Login several times so that all Client files are downloaded and up-to-date.
  • Now, try and Perform a Defrag using Defraggler.
The Folder containing Steam on my system has the following stats:

  • Size: 49.0 MB (51,410,888 bytes)
  • Size on disk: 55.6 MB (58,347,520 bytes)
Defragging the seperate drive took in excess of 30 minutes. I do think that is excessive for the small amount of files involved here.

I will try and provide any further details if they are needed.
Andrew.