This is the first time to use Defraggler - I usually use Diskeeper on a daily basis.

I tried Defraggler because I want to use it to move some files (pagefile.sys) to the end of the C: partition. However, it takes extremely long! The C: drive is 1% fragmented, but after 4 hours the defrag process is only 4% - see attached image.

Click to view attachment

Is it normal that Defraggler is that slow?

[Defraggler 1.10.143 on Windows XP-SP3]


P.S. just checked Task Manager; so far it has done 375,000,000 I/O, running at near 100% CPU usage.

Now, 20 hours later, 13% is defragged.

Click to view attachment

2,600,000,000 I/O have been performed, and the thing still runs using near 100% CPU.

If it continues on this rate, it will take 11 days to complete...

48 hours after it started...

Click to view attachment

71% complete, 6 fragmented files, 33 fragments, 6,140,000,000 I/O.

What is it doing...?

And after 50 hours - defrag complete.

Click to view attachment

Still 5 fragmented files, 30 fragments, and a total of 6.4 billion I/O.

And... the pagefile has not been moved! Here my options

Click to view attachment

How do I actually get certain files moved to the end of the partition? (Tried to look up help & docs at http://docs.piriform.com/defraggler, but all I get is "Could not contact back-end site".)

Thank you, 'romanoff', for your PM. I will run Defraggler in debug mode next time, and send you the logs.

(Just to show other forum members that Piriform has contacted me about my observations.)

I have had the exact same problem. 250 Gb SATA drive, XP SP3, Defraggler 1.10.143. After >20 hours, only defragged 15% of the drive! Previously (say, last week), it worked perfectly. Not sure what has changed.

I'd be happy to follow the previous post and run in debug mode, but isn't the debug log generated only if Defraggler finishes? If so, then not likely, since I'm not going to wait the days and days it might take to finish.

We are looking into this

Best regards
romanoff

Well Pwillener, I suggest you dump your entire computer and buy another one. Not "made in Russia" is it ? Perhaps a valve set ?

Defraggler is the most invaluable program I have ever found on the net. It is super efficient, lightening fast in completing a defrag and absolutely trouble free. I simply cannot imagine how a company like Piriform can offer such a miraculous program as a freebie.

It is so versatile in defragging selected files or free space or the entire computer.
One guy on a Computer Forum said in answer to my Defraggler tributes - "I see no point in messing about with these kind of programs when Windows Defrag works just as well or even better".

This is the most crap statement I have ever seen. WINDOWS DEFRAGGER !!! This Sloth-like system takes 5 hours or more to complete. If you are over 30 years old, then forget Wndows Defragging - you just ain`t got enough life left.

My verdict is, if you are getting older waiting for Defraggler to finish, then the fault is at your end NOT Piriform`s.
Buy another set, life just may be easier for you, but don`t blame Defraggler for being slow.
Gosh man, the defrag is over in SECONDS !

Of course the members of this Forum may tell you where you are going wrong - that is what Forums are for - but going wrong you are. I have had superb response and service from Defraggler for years with NO trouble.
Seconds to defrag every time, whenever you wish to do it..

KAS

Dude, chill out. It's been noted that not every configuration works perfectly. I do wonder what pwillener's hardware specs are, but there is no need to go off on him. He came here asking for help, and in no way was he bashing Piriform. He was merely asking for assistance. However, the last time Windows built in defrag program took that long was on my parents Pentium Pro Gateway 2000 based system. I'm not promoting it, and I love Defraggler, but I've never had that much of a problem with Windows' built in implementation. I too have never had trouble with it, but you don't have to go off on him. If he didn't want help, he wouldn't have come looking for it. It seems that he wants to use the program, so your comments were totally uncalled for.

pwillener, I am curious to see what your hardware specs are. I wonder if it has something to do with your crazy amount of partitions.

AJ

Yes, it is an older computer, which serves me well in most respects. Specs:

Operating System

Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3

System Model

Dell Computer Corporation OptiPlex GX260

Processor

2.25 gigahertz Intel Pentium 4
8 kilobyte primary memory cache
512 kilobyte secondary memory cache

Memory

1022 Megabytes Installed Memory

The HD on which the C: drive resides is an IDE\ST3200822A (200GB).

The "crazy" partitioning layout resides on 3 HD drives, and is due to historical/legacy reasons, as well as current needs. I cannot imagine that having a few more partitions than normal would influence program behavior.

But I will start a debug defrag this evening, so hopefully Piriform will find out what's taking so long...

I ran Defraggler (in debug4 mode) today, starting with 2% fragmentation. It finished within 3 hours.

Click to view attachment

3 hours still seems long to me, but it is not the original problem (50 hours).

I wonder if it is something to do with running Defraggler for the first time? Since the Diskeeper and Defraggler methods are so very different, maybe - even though it is showing only 1% fragmentation, it has a lot to do for the initial defragmentation?

I may also need to mention that I use the "Quick Defragmentation" method wit Diskeeper - which does not defragment free space.

I've just starting using defraggler, and I'm having similar issues, my machine has been left on for days, without the defrag completing. I'm running WIndows Vista.
What I am seeing is more and more fragmented blocks appearing. It turns out these blocks refer to files within "C:\System Volume Information", which are used for system restore points. I've now disabled system restores, and my fragmented files have gone, and it seems to be defragging my drive without any problems now. It still has to complete (only been running 30 mins so far), but I'll report back when (or if) it finishes.

My guess is that Windows system restore doesn't play well with the file re-organising that defraggler does.

Mark

I agree, Mark. I deleted all my restore points and reran defraggler. It now seems to be moving along at a steady rate.

Hi
I ran Defraggle and left it running all day (9am-9pm) I stopped it as it was not half way through!
Looking here it seems know one has come up with a solution, this is very disapointing! Is my only choice to delete it?

i have also a similar system and defraggler runs pretty good..
you even have more memory ram,since like 3 months i took advices about pc performance from black viper site.
they recommend to disable system restore..i guess you may have viruses or spyware,you may need to run also
ccleaner or regcure,,and then a program like privacy eraser pro,to clean all junk from pc.
then reinstall defraggler...it works very well.

WoW KAS you are off the hook! I almost hope you have to come back here for help or some where else and get a response like what you posted here!! YOU DON'T WANT TO POST A HELPFULL REPLY too someones elses THREAD,on a HELP FORUM DO NOT POST!!!! GTFO.

Any way it seems like people are not deleting the OLDER SYSTEM RESTORE points before running defragler. You should also be cleaning your system w/CCleaner to dump all that crap first! I make sure my system is clean,before running either WIN defrag/or soon DEFRAGLER. Dump all your temporary Internet files/cookies, run disk clean up,etc,etc.Or just get CCleaner and use it FIRST and after system is as clean then defrag it! It makes no sense to defrag a system with all the stuff you don't need or want still in it.

Well, you are so blessed to be so smart and have such an efficient setup that Defraggler runs fast. I just downloaded Defraggler and it is very slow, but this is the first defag operation other that Vista's defragger to be run on my 320 GB SETA hard drive. I do have an old, slow PC. It is about 10 months old.

DELL XPS M1530
Intell Core2 Duo T8300 @ 2.4 GHz 2.4 GHz (I know, I listed 2.4 GHz twice, but it is a dual core)
4 GB RAM
Windows Vista Ultimate (32 bit)

Defraggler has run for 18 hours now and I am down from 6,800 defragmented files to 360.

It is slow, but again, it is free and it has GUI that Vista that does not offer. After looking at the first analysis, it does not appear Vista was defragmenting anything even though it was set to.

If I survive this first defragging, I think the defrag process will be faster in the future.

Take it easy on someone looking for advice or help, you might need it in the future.

Thank you Piriform for providing what looks like will be an excellent utility.

I'm having the same very slow performance. over 4 hours and it's only 1% complete.
Defraggler: V1.10.143
OS: XP SP3
Hardware:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
2GB RAM
Seagate 250gb 7200.10 HD

I will remove my restore points and start things again to see if that helps but this is my second time my first attempt ran for 20 hours and never got past 1%.

Disabling Restore points corrected this problem for me. Defrag completed in a reasonable amount of time.

Can anyone else confirm that disabling sys restore fixes slow defrag?
MrRon

I have a Core 2 Quad Q9550, 8GB of memory, and two 320GB 7200rpm drives in Raid 0. Operating system is Vista Ultimate x64. I turned system restore off and began a defragment, it's over 20 hours now and is still at 94% done. It's been at 94% for more than ten hours. I used the built in Vista defragmenter three days ago.

120GB defragged in 12hours, great job, very powerfull. Why should I use Defraggler? Windows Derfrag is many more better and faster.

AFAIK the sys-restore system itself does not interfere with defraggler BUT
it does put a huge number and size of files into "System Volume Information"
where you cannot see them at all with Windows Explorer (or almost any other tool).
So, yes, delete all Restore Points (ONLY IF BACKED-UP!) before a big defrag
and don't forget to re-enable sys-restore afterwards.

Looking at the top of this thread, the image shows a DREADFULLY fragmented drive.
Defragging weekly or even daily is MUCH quicker each time.
As I explained in another thread, "1% fragmentation" can be highly misleading.
It can mean that 5,000 (of a typical half-million) files, probably all of the most
frequently used ones, are broken into a thousand fragments each!

Other common slow-downs are Antivirus (suspend on-open detection if possible)
and indexing services, especially "Copernic" "Google Desktop" and by far the worst
"Windows Search v4". IMHO these are NEVER worth running constantly, anyway.

I have a 120 GB HD, running win xp pro. One partition FAT 32. I ran defraggler 3 days ago, but after hours of staying at 34% defraged I stopped it . Now I can't boot up my computer even in safe mode. It won't boot up using the last good configuation. I did a fixmbr and fixboot with my winxp cd, and it still would not boot. I then used UBCD4 Windows.
I used a program called TestDisk (www.cgsecurity.org). It showed the MBR and Boot sectors needed to be fixed....so I did that. I can view my files in the root directory, but on deepere analyzing of each cylinder, there is a problem with the last 3 cylinders. I still can't boot up normally to recover my data......Any help or sugestions would be appreciated.
Mike in TN

If you have bad tracks or cylinders on your HDD, nowadays it is best to just bin it because they cost UKP60 or less. You need to buy or borrow a USB/Firewire external disc to transfer your data, using UBCD. You can combine those with a "USB caddy" so that you can transfer an external disc to internal. If you have no money and can borrow an external disc, you could re-partition to avoid bad cylinders, but failing discs usually continue to fail and more bad cylinders will appear before long.
Fat32 is dreadfully unreliable. A single bit wrong in the boot sector can ruin the whole thing completely by making the next program overwrite the wrong FAT area. NTFS is only a bit better. The Linux Ext2 (or Ext3) system is far better. You can't boot Windows in Ext2, but there is a freeware "Ext2IFS" driver so that you can use it for a second partition with WinXP/Vista, to hold your big, valuable data. It doesn't suffer from fragmentation (hardly) at all. Unless you have a little Linux bootable partition as well, you can create and maintain it with a Linux CD system such as "Knoppix".

Thank you MikeYates for your indepth reply. What program should I use to transfer my data, and can I use DVD media formated for Data with Nero to back up to?
Mike in TN

That depends how you intend to set up the new hard disc (are you buying one?) and how much IT experience you have. If you want the new disc to be an NTFS clone of your FAT set-up, with all your applications still installed, "ntbackup" which is included (in the Accessories/System Tools menu or to add as a feature) in XPpro but not XPhome is best. (If you have XPhome, you're supposed to buy the "Plus" pack but it already has all the dll's for ntbackup, you just need to copy the little ntbackup.exe from a pro!) Yes, DVD will do, but it may be tedious to divide your data between them in separate backups, each under 4.2 GB. One of them must be a complete working XP system, because the method is to install a bare XP on your new disc, then restore a full-system backup (must include "System State") to overwrite it. If you have a USB-hard-disc that is much easier to do in one chunk. Your system restored from your first DVD will have loads if issues due to missing bits, though returning to a restore-point, carefully created in advance, after they're all back, "should" work.
Another option is to install your new disc as a second drive (if there are cables for it inside - you haven't said if this is a laptop! - involving the master/slave jumper if not SATA) format it as NTFS and put a complete ntbackup onto it. Then remove the old drive, make the new one master and install a bare XP, carefully opting to use the existing partition, to do the restore.
Second best choice would be a Linux "tarball" backup and restore (with fiddly boot-sector work) and third, buy "Norton Ghost".
Don't be surprised to have to speak to Microsoft (at least a robot) on the phone before you cat get your XP "activated" again.

I love CCleaner, but something is wrong with Defraggler.

My issue...the defrag moves quickly through to ~90%. Then it just sits there. I left it on for ~20hrs. and it didn't move. I had to stop it after that but it never showed a sign that it was going to finish. The file names were changing but nothing else. The machine is a netbook (Samsung NC10) with a 160GB drive. The machine is only a few months old so the drive should be in very good shape. OS is a slimmed down version of XP SP3 (using nLite). System Restore and indexing service have never been on. Same goes for Windows Updates and the like (done manually only after personal inspection). I don't run antivirus software, never have, so that can't be a problem (and no I don't have any viruses or spyware issues I can assure you). There are some large applications installed (Maple, Matlab, OrCAD) and I do seem to remember seeing it going through OrCAD files while stuck at 90%.

I hope the team looks into these issues and finds a way to improve the application. To those that want to get defensive simply because the application doesn't perform for them as it should, please be quiet. You sound like a childish teenager that has little to no background in software development, computer architecture, etc.. If you did you would know that problems are suppose to be reported. This allows the development team to find problems, fix them, and make the application better for everyone (not to mention it provides them a purpose to continue having a job after the application is released).

Thanks.

Well I cant confirm that. Defraggler has been pretty fast with me

OS:XPSP3
Hardware: DELL OPTIPLEX 330
RAM: 2 GB
PROCESSOR: INTEL PENTIUM DUAL CORE 2.0GHz

hm... I think defraggler "grabs" the MFT Files too often - an Option to keep away from that Files where be a good thing.
Also an exclude option for Files with no extension like in a local CDDB (Music Database).

sorry my poor english

cheers

BTW: I use JKdefrag 3.36 & JKDefragStarter 1.18.2 completive - on the same Partition with the Option
"Move to END of Disk" he is quite faster (I think without the movement of the MFT Files?).
While Defraggler hangs for several minutes at 100% CPU Load at the same Function/Drive.

you can try smart defrag(free)...I like deflagger cause I have used their product ccleaner for years plus deflagger permits individual files to be defragged. full hard drive does take time, with smart defrag it takes very fast but not as thorough.

I have the exact same problem, but on only one of my hard drives it seems to be a problem with large numbers of small files in the gz and stg file's on my system which come from a CVS file store. I noticed that when I defrag my C: drive I have no problems the cpu is about 50% utilised however all my partitions are ok Except for one drive which contains many millions of tiny files such as *.stg *.xml *.btg all around the file size of between 1kb to 100 kb sizes. then the program seem's to get overwhelmed it causes extreme lags on my system and 100% cpu usage. I have had problems before with these particula files so I started archiving them and accessing them from dvd iso images which seemed to solve the problem at least in relation to defragging my hard drive, so most of the data such as simulator scenery data is now stored on DVD to avoid the problem.

However the data I now have on my hard drive is dynamic and must be updated on a regular basis via CVS Updates using Tortoise CVS and theirfore burning this data to a disk is not an option for me, My only option is to store this data on its own to a dedicated partition so that it does not get mixed with other important system files or large files, that need regular defragmentation to be done. Perhaps the Authors of Defraggler can look into why this is happening ?

All the best Chelley

Brand spanking new harddisk (WD Scorpio 320 GB), clean install of Vista 64-bit and a few GB of basic software (Office etc.). Core 2 duo @ 2.0 GHz

51% defragmented after certainly more than 24 hours of hard work (I've lost the count, went a few times in Sleep Mode in between -no, I didn't count those hours in the 24-).

It's also 'stuck' on the same percentage for +- 4 hours at least before moving on to the next percentage, and like other people have mentioned: the file names keep on changing, so it's still 'working' in a way.

If I had known about this before, I would have opted for the debug mode but now I'll just have to keep on waiting until it's finished without a debug log, I guess.

If I can be of any help with more information or whatever to solve this issue, just pop me a message.

continuing the thread: defragler takes forever on my computer.

Now hardware specs for those that blame computer:

Core i7 920 (2.66 quad core for those that dont know what that means)
1TB HD 7200 RPM
12gb ddr3 ram
gtx285

OS:
vista 64-bit

Harddrive state:
- only 382 GB used
- 190 GB (some 24,000+ fragment files) fragmented
- some 80,000+ total fragments
- 50%+ fragmented

it's been on for 12 hours and only around 40% done. not sure if this is normal. From resource moniter it is not running any of the cpu cores at max and niether is harddrive read/write maxing out.

any ideas?
It'd be cool if anyone wants to answer me via email.

wanted to try out defraggler because kotaku vote said it was the best. it is indeed liteweight, ofc I will be looking forward to seeing results. But not sure if how long it's taking is normal

just a note, i ran vista's built in defragmentation for about 15 min, turned off system restore, and went back to defraggler and now used space becomes 212gb with only 20,000 fragments (4.6 gb). much better.

still seems pretty slow though. ran for 10 min fragments went down by 20 in 20,000, 4.6gb -> 4.4gb

hm - how many partitons do You have? One Big? I think that slows down any Operation.
At 1 TB I would't use min. 3 to 4 primary Partitions.

cheers

BTW: The older Version of JKDefrag64 http://kessels.biz/JkDefrag (+ JKDefragStarter Commandline-Generator
http://thommy88.th.funpic.de/jkdefragstarter-11-29.html can be fast. (The newer MyDefag is IMHO "un-handy").

KAS - I hope you said this in jest!!

I have a Made here in the USA top notch computer (besides the Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit), and I am having the exact same problem right now!! I have run Defraggler on multiple computers including installing it and running it on ALL of my clients systems, and this is the first time running into this prioblem. I will post my entire problem with soecifics in a seperate thread since I want to resolve it.

Eddie G

Just turned off Restore as everyone suggested and it deleted (hopefully) all those pesky restore points. I always run CCleaner (or Disj Cleanup) before running a defrag. My system is (using PC Wizard)and running the 64-bit version (not noted on summary):

Operating System: Windows ™ Vista Ultimate Professional 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2
Report Date: Saturday 03 October 2009 at 07:50

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


<<< System Summary >>>
> Mainboard : EVGA 132-CK-NF78
> Chipset : nVidia nForce 780i SLI SPP
> Processor : Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650 @ 3000 MHz
> Physical Memory : 8192 MB (4 x 2048 DDR2-SDRAM )
> Video Card : NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
> Hard Disk : NVIDIA (1000 GB)
> Hard Disk : NVIDIA (600 GB)
> Hard Disk : ST340062 (400 GB)
> CD-Rom Drive : SanDisk Cruzer USB Device
> DVD-Rom Drive : HL-DT-ST BDDVDRW GGC-H20L SCSI CdRom Device
> DVD-Rom Drive : HL-DT-ST DVD-RAM GH22LS30 SCSI CdRom Device
> Monitor Type : Acer P241W - 24 inches
> Operating System : Windows ™ Vista Ultimate Professional 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2 (x64)
> DirectX : Version 10.00
> Windows Performance Index : 5.7


Attached is snapshot of defraggler after 36 hours.

Defraggler is probably the slowest disk defragger I have ever used. Please fix this, it seems like a nice app if it worked.

Hello,

This is running very slowly for me too: Defraggler version 1.14.159; My laptop has a Core 2 T8300, RAID 0 hard disks, Vista Ultimate 32bit SP2. When running Defraggler is sitting near 50% CPU, practically occupying an entire core, which seems odd for what I imagined to be an I/O bound process (is there any polling going on?). I used Process Explorer to get a thread stack and these two appear quite frequently:

ntkrnlpa.exe!KeWaitForMultipleObjects+0xabc
ntkrnlpa.exe!KeWaitForSingleObject+0x492
ntkrnlpa.exe!KeTestAlertThread+0x78
hal.dll!KfRaiseIrql+0xd1
hal.dll!KeRaiseIrqlToSynchLevel+0x70
hal.dll!HalEndSystemInterrupt+0x73
hal.dll!HalInitializeProcessor+0xcc1
Defraggler.exe+0x20e29
Defraggler.exe+0xf1a02
Defraggler.exe+0x10a848
ntdll.dll!RtlEnumerateGenericTableWithoutSplaying+0x424
ntdll.dll!RtlEnumerateGenericTableWithoutSplaying+0x4a


ntkrnlpa.exe!KeWaitForMultipleObjects+0xabc
hal.dll!KfLowerIrql+0x64
ntkrnlpa.exe!ExReleaseResourceLite+0x161
ntkrnlpa.exe!KeSetEvent+0xb2a
ntdll.dll!KiFastSystemCallRet
Defraggler.exe+0xfcd49
SHELL32.dll!Ordinal264+0x3f1
SHELL32.dll!Ordinal236+0x4f2
iastor.sys+0x76f75
SHELL32.dll!Ordinal205+0x3a53
Defraggler.exe+0x120055


Like others here, defrag time is many hours. If this performance issue gets fixed then this will be a fantastic tool.

Cheers,

Chris.

Thanks for the extra info. We are still looking into this issue, but are unable to recreate it on any of our test machines, but we will not give up

Thanks MrRon! So is the CPU low while Defraggler is running on your test machine?

If you need any more system info or if there's any way I can help out, then please feel free to give me a shout on the personal email I used to register this account.

Cheers,

Chris.

I am also having these issues. It used to work fine a few months ago after a couple program updates and many Win64 updates . . .

I've been recently concerned with defragging my drive "D" hardware RAID 0 array running from an Adaptec 3805 single channel per device.

I have not disabled and deleted restore points etc as I don't have a complete backup at this time. All my virus scanning is disabled, as is indexing.

I downloaded PC Wizard to generate this report if it helps.

Owner: Microsoft
Organisation: Microsoft
User: boscoj
Operating System: Windows ™ Vista Ultimate Professional 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2
Report Date: Thursday 15 October 2009 at 17:55

<<< System Summary >>>
> Mainboard : EVGA 132-BL-E758
> Chipset : Intel X58
> Processor : Intel Core i7 920 @ 2666 MHz
> Physical Memory : 12288 MB (6 x 2048 DDR3-SDRAM )
> Video Card : NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
> Hard Disk C: Array SAS Disk Device (294 GB)
> Hard Disk D: Array SCSI Disk Device (1498 GB)
> Hard Disk R: RAM (2 GB)
> DVD-Rom Drive : TSSTcorp CDDVDW SH-S223Q ATA Device
> Monitor Type : ViewSonic VX2235wm - 22 inches
> Network Card : RTL8168/8111 PCIe Gigabit Ethernet Adapter
> Network Card : RTL8168/8111 PCIe Gigabit Ethernet Adapter
> Operating System : Windows ™ Vista Ultimate Professional 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2 (x64)
> DirectX : Version 10.00
> Windows Performance Index : 5.9

Similar problem with Defraggler.
1. Ran Quick Defraggler, which completed in about a minute.
2. Ran Microsoft defragger; completed in an hour.
3. Started Defraggler. It ran 3 hours and was at 40%, so I cancelled it. I have done this at least 3 times.

System is 1.86 dual core with 2GB RAM, Vista Home Premium.
Disk being defragged is 320 GB with 70 GB used and 250 GB free space.

Me too Defraggler is very very slow. On top of that, the next worse thing is that you can only have one instance of Defraggler so you cannot defrag more than one partition at once, which is very very bad. I just recently downloaded it and so far I don't see the point using it even though I've heard it's a good app. This is pretty much what I do EVERY evening before going to bed:

- I use CCleaner to clean up my computer.
- I start AMP Winoff to get the computer to shut down in 45 minutes.
- I start three times Power Defragmenter, one for each partition (I have three).
- I set the partition level at Triple Pass defragmentation (defrag three times) for each instance and run them all at once.
- I go to bed.


This is my configuration:

Windows XP Pro
Processor: AMD Phenom II X4 955 3.2GHZ
Graphic card: XFX Radeon HD 4890 1GB 850MHZ
RAM: 4GB 2X2GB DDR3

1st partition: 66 Gig, 39 Gig free space.
2nd partition: 409 Gig, 157 Gig free space.
3rd partition: 372 Gig, 187 Gig free space.

Hi there,

Just registered to say that I am having similar problems. I have used CCleaner for a long time now and so trusted Piriform to make a good defrag program. However, after 48 hours, I'm sitting at 25% complete and in the last 12 hours it has only increased by 1%. Fragmentation is 52%, just like it has been throughout the whole process.

My system is running Vista Home Premium 64 bit, my HD is 1 Terrabyte (with 300 GB used). For Kas' information, the machine is not Valve driven, nor is it Russian . It is, in fact, only 3 months old, has 12GB of RAM and is the fastest machine that I could afford back when I bought it. It runs every other program that I have asked it to at lightning fast speeds.

I have only just found out (by reading this thread) that the system restore points may be responsible so I will try disabling them. However, so far, Defraggler falls a long way short of what I hoped it would, which is a shame.

I just DL this program also and am having the same speed issues
my system specs are

MOBO EVGA 780i SLI
CPU Intel X6800 3.42 MHz
COOLING Zalman 9700
8gb Corsair Dominator @ 1067 2.1v
VIDEO XFX 8800 GTX
PS OCZ 700w
OS Windows 7 Ultimate X64 / XP Pro x32
HD's 3 X 320gb Barrcuda's Raid 5
WD 300gb VelociRaptor
Display's 2 21" Sony Trinitrons

I will try disabling system restore and see what that does
will let you know

OK, about 24 hours later and I'm still having problems. After disabling system restore and making sure that the restore points had all gone I restarted Defraggler. Initially I thought that things were going OK but the process got slower and slower. Each % complete seemed to be taking twice as long as the one before it. It is now 10.42 am and since 8pm yesterday, Defraggler has only increased its % complete by 3. ie 3% completed in almost 15 hours. It looks like Defraggler is not the defrag program for me.

Eliminated all but current restore point. This dropped used disk space from 70 GB to 34GB.
Microsoft Defrag ran in 45 minutes.
Quick Defraggler ran in seconds.
Full Defraggler ran to completion in 11 minutes! My problem is solved.

Thanks.