OzRon

Moderators are quick to jump in if other software is mentioned, but in over 6 years no-one at Piriform is prepared to address this issue? I hope that my criticism doesn't get this post edited by a moderator, but the program does NOT work as advertised, and IMHO Piriform's silence after all this time is shameful. Does Piriform not realize that sticking its head in the sand not only affects this program's reputation but can also prevent people from wanting to use/try other Piriform programs? To repeat from a previous post, technically free space defragmentation should be the easiest form of defrag. Color me nostalgic but I miss the days nearly 20 years ago when I could perfectly defrag any drive, files and free space, and in a single pass. (I would give some program examples, but then someone might remove them if I mention other developer's software.) And before someone suggests, as has happened in other threads, that instead of complaining I should just switch to alternative software, I would mention that (1) my efforts past and present have been in the hope that Piriform might fix a program that I really want to like, and (2) I haven't yet found an equivalent or better current alternative that also offers a "portable" version - a feature that I need. (Of course if any reader happens to know of one, they're not going to be allowed to mention it here.) Thank you eL_PuSHeR for agreeing with the reported problem. Though after so many years, your use of the word "yet" does not give me any confidence. However your revelation that Defraggler actually creates fragmentation, as happened in the example I included with the lead post here, makes things worse. A defragmentation program that not only cannot defragment free space, but also creates fragmentation where none existed? In my view that verges on being scandalous. And thank you Rodster for your contributions, even though censored. I would add however that you seem to be luckier with Windows' native Defrag than I have been. I haven't been able to get it to work any better than Defraggler, other than not causing new fragmentation. Which I suppose does make it better in that respect. But isn't the whole purpose of third-party alternatives to provide something better than Windows? Sorry, Piriform, but a nicer interface isn't enough if the technology behind that interface is no good.

Thank you, Rodster. However the command that you have given is for Windows' defrag program, not for Defraggler. (See http://www.piriform.com/docs/defraggler/advanced-usage/command-line-parameters) Are you suggesting to use the Windows utility instead of Defraggler? By the way, I've since stumbled across the following statement on Piriform's website under the heading "How Defraggler defragments freespace". I think it validates my complaint: "Defraggler moves files or large file fragments in order to create a single continuous block of free clusters."

Back in 2009 I encountered problems with Defraggler's Defrag Freespace process (see http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=21558). Six and a half years later and after some thirty program updates (now v2.19.982) little has changed other than the number of forum complaints about this (with no answers as far as I can tell). My original secondary question remains: why is it necessary to defragment files and free space SEPARATELY, rather than as a single operation? But the main issue is that I STILL cannot defragment the free space on a drive! The included screenshot shows just one example. The top half shows a drive before Freespace Defrag, with no file fragmentation. The bottom half is the result of running Freespace Defrag. (Note that the "Analysis results" are carried over from the previous Analyze run, and have not been updated by the last operation.) This particular example shows a second problem: performing Freespace Defrag not only didn't defragment the free space, it introduced new file fragmentation! While this has NOT been my experience with all drives, the fragmented free space after a Freespace Defrag IS my usual result with all drives. (And on this particular drive, new file fragmentation ALWAYS occurs when performing a Freespace Defrag when there is zero file fragmentation.) I would add that the drive used in this example is NOT a system drive, has no page file, is not subject to shadow copying, and has not been accessed by any other program while running Defraggler. I also have to agree with one of the other posts on this subject in that one would think that defragging free space should be the simplest form of defrag operation. Are over 30 program updates and six-and-a-half years not long enough to wait for Piriform to fix this frustration?

Thank you trium. I appreciate your suggestions, and that you addressed the second part of my last post. However Windows' native "Snipping Tool" easily creates screenshot images for me. And the image (error message) was so small that it was hardly worth using a separate image hosting site. Plus, I was hoping to have the error message appear "inline" in the post, so I wasn't trying to include it in a separate uploadable attachment. Perhaps on this forum pasting is not allowed and one has to resort to separate attachments, but I found it strange that the small pasted image was accepted until I tried to Post it, when I then received the second error that didn't tell me that I am not allowed to paste a small image, but that I'm not allowed to use that "extension". IMHO that's as unclear and ambiguous as the original problem I reported at the start of this thread.

Thank you Augeas. Agreement appreciated. Probably wrong place to mention this, but for the first time ever I tried to click on "Like this" (on your post). The result, a message stating: An error occurred You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day That suggests that I am allowed zero positive votes per day! Also when initially I pasted an actual screenshot of the above message into this post, it appeared fine in the "Reply to this topic" window. But when I later clicked on "Post" I got: An error occurred You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community Huh? I think that this forum software is not their finest achievment either.

Thank you, hazelnut. I suspected as much. Perhaps someone at Piriform might consider clarifying the documentation by adding wording along the lines of the bolded parts below? It could save others a ton of time. - "can recover files from damaged ... drives provided that Windows still sees the original drive letter assignment", and - "Recuva scans all parts of a drive ... provided the drive has a drive letter assigned to it". PS - I re-assigned "D:" to my lost drive by getting Windows to create a new volume in the space that had become mysteriously "Unallocated". Windows insisted that I needed to format the volume before use, which I did using "Quick format" in an attempt to leave the data space intact. Then ran Recuva and scanned D: (including "non-deleted files"). It didn't find a single one of my many lost files! I would hope that this was a result of the original crash/damage, and not a result of my re-assigning that Unallocated space. However if it was the latter, I would argue that Recuva helped lose my precious data. (And I wouldn't use it again until it adds the capability to scan "all parts of a drive", as advertised.)

Piriform's website claims that Recuva "can recover files from damaged or newly formatted drives" and states that "Recuva scans all parts of a drive...". Am I misunderstanding? Or am I victim of a documentation problem? Or both? Scenario: Four volumes (C: through F:). Then a crash, and drive D: disappears! When looking at Windows' Disk Management I now see healthy drives C:, E: and F: but the remainder of the drive now shows as "Unallocated". So I obtain and launch Recuva, in the hope of recovering files that were on the now-phantom drive D:. First problem: Before scanning, I have to select what to scan. But while C:, E: and F: are included as options, "Unallocated" is not. Perhaps I have to select "All local disks"? No, that appears to scan only C:, E: and F:. Then I browse through online help and discover that to recover non-deleted files (damaged, etc. drives) I have to select option "Scan for non-deleted files". OK, that makes sense but a subsequent scan of "All local disks" with "Scan for non-deleted files" selected returns thousands of existing files from, you guessed it, C:, E: and F: only! So I'm left to guess that either (1) the crash damage was so great that all traces of files on D: have disappeared or (2) Recuva can only scan areas that are currently allocated a drive letter (and not "all parts of a drive", though that's perhaps a confusing or ambiguous Piriform statement). The answer to this may be that I have to FIRST re-assign "D" to the Unallocated space, which I haven't yet tried while not wanting to do anything that may affect the space that needs to be scanned for files. But if that IS the answer, clearer program documentation would be a great help. Comments/answers appreciated.

Thank you, MrRon. Unfortunately the test rig was a borrowed computer, as stated in the problem description, and has since been returned. We don't have an inhouse system with the same characteristics - XP and FAT32. All machines are running Vista/NTFS, though one has XP running as a VMware virtual machine, with both NTFS and FAT32 (virtual) drives. I can see if we can duplicate the symptoms on one of the described computers, if it will help. (Is Defraggler OK in a VM environment?) Alternatively, if it's important, I can see if we can re-borrow the original laptop and, assuming that the problem is still present, we can get a /debug log from it. That option will take a little longer. Please advise. Do I take it from your reply that this is not a known issue, or that it has not been reported before?

Thanks, Augeas. I appreciate the input. I'm well aware that most free applications don't include support. But few display the appearance of continuity, the "Use This" coaxers, the enthusiasm, and the donation requests that one finds on the Piriform site. In our case we are more than happy to pay (or donate) for useful software - we have done this with every free program that we have ended up using. As long as it works as advertised. The main problem that I described was a complete failure to defrag free space, in spite of repeated attempts. I'm surprised that you find the problem esoteric. Our need, on the other hand, is perhaps a tad esoteric - a compact defragmentation tool that is available in a portable edition. I have not (yet) stumbled across alternatives. Any suggestions?

After discovering Defraggler, our enthusiasm was dampened by problems encountered on first tests. I posted a detailed problem description on this forum. ("Serious Defrag Freespace Issues".) http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=21558 Two weeks later it shows close to 300 views, but no responses. Perhaps users have no solution, and moderators are very busy. So we tried approaching Piriform directly, using the only means that we could find: online comment submission via the website. No response or acknowledgment to that one either. Anyone care to suggest if (and how) we should persevere? Or do we just give up? .

Small and efficient programs with portable versions, and paid for voluntarily or by advertising that I've yet to see on their websites. Don't know how these guys do it, but I am grateful. I want to like Defraggler. But I'm having some issues with it that I'm hoping someone will respond to. Perhaps I was spoiled in the old days by programs such as the defragmenter that came with Norton Utilities a decade ago. In one pass it would defragment both files AND free space, leaving all data unfragmented and nicely placed at the beginning of a drive, with all unoccupied ("free") space following, UNFRAGMENTED. So first issue: is it necessary for Defraggler to defragment files and free space SEPARATELY? Still, I could live with this if I was able to defragment both, but here's the second, more serious issue: I cannot! I downloaded Defraggler 1.09.138 and decided to play with it (read "test it") on a friend's computer. An XP laptop with a 30GB drive containing a half-full FAT32-formatted system partition (C:). First I started a normal defrag. However as it was taking a very long time, I stopped it (perhaps halfway through?), deciding to just defragment selected files. Nevertheless, after being pleasantly surprised at the speed of my progress, I ended up defragging all fragmented files. A subsequent CHKDSK and Defraggler re-analysis confirmed that I had no problems on the disk, and no fragmentation. However, while the Drive Map was now only blue and white (no red), the white bits were all over the place. So I now attempted to defragment the free space. This time I thought that I would make it easier for Defraggler by avoiding any Windows interference (writing) during the operation. So I booted up with a BartPE CD and ran Defraggler portable from a thumb drive. (I.e. I did not boot from the drive being fragmented.) From here on the surprises came thick and fast. First surprise: the Drive Map showed brown squares (pagefile.sys) for the very first time. Question: Why did they not show previously, when booting from the drive? I decided to be even kinder to the program, and before proceeding to defrag I deleted the large pagefile.sys. (The drive's OS would recreate it next time I booted from it.) I had also previously turned off System Restore. At this stage I assumed (perhaps incorrectly?) that with no pagefile or restore points, and working on a "dormant" OS, there would be no unmovable files. I then re-launched Defraggler, confirmed that now only blue and white squares appeared (still 0% fragmentation), and selected "Defrag Freespace" (NOT with "allow fragmentation"). Second, major surprise: when the long defrag completed, not only were the white "free space" squares STILL all over the place, but I now had some 60 NEWLY FRAGMENTED FILES! So defragmenting an unfragmented drive resulted in a fragmented drive! Can anyone explain why? Continuing to work under the BartPE OS, I patiently re-defragmented all the newly fragmented files, until I got back to zero fragmentation. Then I ran a second "Defrag Freespace". Much better this time: it took a lot less time, and it did not refragment any files. However, third just-as-major surprise: when finished, my white-squared free space was still all over the place! I ran Defrag Freespace 2 or 3 more times before giving up. Same results each time. I never managed to defragment the free space. Any comments or explanations about this seemingly bizarre behaviour would be much appreciated. As I said to begin, I want to like Defraggler. But so far I seem to be wasting my time using it.