Jump to content

Defraggler suggestions


StuartUK

Recommended Posts

First of all, I am a huge fan of Piriform, and have everyone I know using their products. I have compared Defraggler to a large number of professional defragment programs, and compared to Defraggler, they have failed miserably.

 

The only thing I cannot do with a Piriform product, is defrag my registry. Defragging the registry isn't the most important thing, but if Piriform included that in some way, they would certainly encompass all basic maintenance.

 

 

Thank you for making such a quality product!!!

 

For those looking to defragment the page file, Windows event logs, and registry hives Sysinternals has a free program called Pagedefrag. see the link below

 

 

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

an "Analyze All" or Check-Boxes for "Analyze Checked" (or both) would be nice. I have up to 8 hard drives connected at times, and analyzing them all individually is a tad annoying.

An analysis scheduler might also be an interesting addition. Would probably need logfiles to be saved to be practical

 

Only a tad, though. I've never really had a problem with Defraggler. Never even run into a bug or crash, just thought they might be some nice additions. Of course, too many 'nice additions' could really bog down the software, and that wouldn't be good for something so clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Comments - Suggestions [2 Items] based on current Version of Defraggler - Version 2.00.230

 

Item 1: Command Line - Silent Mode - Features or options as per:

http://www.piriform.com/docs/defraggler/advanced-usage/command-line-parameters

 

Currently I have Defraggler running in silent mode (has been running for hours) and cannot determine where (how far along in process) the program that is running actually is - ergo - how soon will/can I expect it to complete.

 

I cannot start Defraggler in graphical mode to see the status as it detects the "other" version is running and appears I would have to "kill" that to see any elements of status or recover graphical mode and that alone defeats the process or issue I am trying to resolve.

 

I also do not see any command line options for the silent mode to display or ascertain status or to allow for any display of status via a command line feature that one could use. I am also aware that there are differences in how these two forms of the program treat certain scenarios (e.g. drives with TrueCrypt volumes and possibly other software or hardware issues).

 

As such my query is whether it is possible to enable a command line or visualization mode for the silent version while it is running or a priori to allow user to get some evidence of program status. In short df.exe is running but:

 

A. Is it actually doing anything?

 

or

 

B. How far along in the process is it?

 

I understand the logic behind not using resources for a graphical display that no one is looking at, but also have concerns for programs running silently that cannot be accessed or indicate status or monitor progress.

 

Would an option or default for df.exe to include an icon in the systray or elsewhere that includes a display of relative status (%completed) be possible or reasonable?

 

It is one thing to wait another hour but will it take one more or two or ten?

 

I know I can "stop" the program but prefer to allow programs to run to their logical completion of a scheduled task. An indicator option might help here.

 

 

ITEM 2: Bootup option to run Defraggler is quite similar to Sysinternals procedure as per;

 

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx

 

Are these processes identical?

 

For those of us already using the Sysinternals Page Defrag option is there any benefit to those elements incorporated in Defraggler?

 

Possibly there are benefits of one over the other but does not appear on cursory analysis there is much if any difference.

 

Suggest this could be addressed in the FAQ or Manuals to clarify if there are differences - if any and what they actually are?

 

HTH

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A deficiency that I have found with quite a few of the low end defraggers is that they do not include in the list of partitions to be defragmented those partitions which do not have a drive letter. Sad to say that defraggler which is otherwise such a great little program also has this deficiency.

 

Some might wonder why you would want such a partition. Well one very good reason is to prevent "fragmentation contagion" from temporary files in a cache from spreading throughout ones relatively static files. So you can set aside a small partition just for temporary files of this type, and simply "mount" it in an otherwise empty NTFS folder that has been created for temporary files. The great thing about this is that you can mount this *same* temporary file partition in any number of folders which are intended for storing this type of temporary files (A knowledgeable user will be aware of a number of these folders - such as browser profile folders or "User/Local Settings" folders). Doing this keeps all these temporary files which are created and deleted with gay abandon from causing fragmentation amongst more static files. It is generally the case that if you find a reason to mount a partition in an empty NTFS folder, then it is usually desirable (even if only to prevent newbie user confusion or conserve drive letters) to un-assign the drive letter from that partition.

 

It is the case that this type of partition is often the very one that you would want to defragment the most often - and it is not possible to do it without assigning it a drive letter first, then defragmenting it, and then un-assigning the drive letter again. So an improvement to Defraggler would be to include in the list of partitions to be defragmented those which don't have drive letters assigned.

 

Please note that even Microsoft's rudimentary defragmenter offers this facility when run from the computer management console (right-click "My Computer", select "Manage", then "Disk Defragmenter"). Unfortunately apart from this capability it is a particularly poor defragmenter!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there possible to set a multi-selected option for all drive

each time i need to wait my C drive to defrag completely before i my D drive defrag and select the shutdown function after finished.

can piriform build this function!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Moderators

is there possible to set a multi-selected option for all drive

each time i need to wait my C drive to defrag completely before i my D drive defrag and select the shutdown function after finished.

can piriform build this function!?

 

Hi Kid', and welcome to the forum.

 

Defraggler will defrag drives sequentially, but not at the same time.

 

If you shift/select the drives to defrag, it will show them as "queued", and will shut down your computer when the last one in the queue completes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Add a ""Compact Drive"" option. It could work like this:

-- find the first gap on a drive

-- find a fragment of a file/the last file on that same drive that would fit (precisely) into that gap

-- move that same file from the end of the drive towards the beginning of that drive into that gap.

-- And don't bother that the amount of free spaces/gaps has increased.

This is something different than ""Defrag Freespace"". Because when I look at the drive map it seems that Defrag Freespace wants to reduce the amount of free spaces/gaps.

 

2. Introduce an option that gives the user the opportunity to tell DF to show (with every file) where a file is moved from and moved to. When that option isn't selected/box isn't ticked then DF should/could show the changes on the drive only every say 30, 60, 90 or 120 seconds or even perhaps never during defragmentation/compacting. Then DF can use most or all of the computer's processing power for the defragmentation. The current drive map GUI simply still sucks. I consider the current GUI to be a compromise I don't like.

When this option is introduced then I think DF (when busy defragmenting) should - IMO - use the GUI of DF v1.10. The drive map GUI of v1.10 is still my favourite.

 

3. The ""drive XX"" tab in the DF main screen:

When the drive map has been enlarged at the expense of the info at the bottom of the screen then the pie chart is compressed and even completely not shown and then only some information is displayed. Perhaps instead of compressing the pie chart it's better to not compress that part of the GUI but introduce a scroll bar that allows the user to see the entire content of that tab.

 

(Post edited. Modifications in bold letters).

System setup: http://speccy.piriform.com/results/gcNzIPEjEb0B2khOOBVCHPc

 

A discussion always stimulates the braincells !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

remove popup window.

??? Why?

 

ADVICE FOR USING CCleaner'S REGISTRY INTEGRITY SECTION

DON'T JUST CLEAN EVERYTHING THAT'S CHECKED OFF.

Do your Registry Cleaning in small bits (at the very least Check-mark by Check-mark)

ALWAYS BACKUP THE ENTRY, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'LL BREAK IF YOU DON'T.

Support at https://support.ccleaner.com/s/?language=en_US

Pro users file a PRIORITY SUPPORT via email support@ccleaner.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add an option to defrag a drive according to the current directory structure. Suppose there're three directories called A, B and C on a drive. Then DF could defrag the drive in such a way that after defragmenting those files are physically arranged in that order, files in directory A, then files from directory B and then of directory C.

 

This is in fact defragmenting in alfabetical order. When I look at how DF works (at least for me) the way the sorting takes place isn't clear at all.

 

(BTW my previous post in this thread was edited. Do the moderators get a notice everytime a post has been modified ?)

System setup: http://speccy.piriform.com/results/gcNzIPEjEb0B2khOOBVCHPc

 

A discussion always stimulates the braincells !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind if Defraggler could organise my files in size order, i.e largest at the start and smallest at the end, or better still divide my drive into 12 equal segments and order my files depending on the sign of the zodiac. :D

I was joking of course, however to be frank you could arrange files in any order or system you like the bottom line is you'll never see any significant speed improvement.

Modern hard drive aren't made of putty anymore they have fast seek times (moving head to the desired location) this is order of milliseconds not a few seconds.

Hard drives also come with internal cache RAM which is temporary storage space because it's capable of reading data from the disk much faster than it can transfer this via IDE/SATA controller (except in PIO Mode).

So basically it doesn't matter where your files are store or how far apart they are and in what order, your hard drive is fast enough read everything without any difference being noticed.

 

Richard S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I think your theory is reversed. Doesn't it take less time to seek data if it store on a ring/layer that is closer to the center? The circumference (the edge of a circle) is smaller the closer you are - C=2(pi)r. Smaller radii would be closer to the center. 1 cm vs 5 cm.

 

AJ

The outer edge of a drive is always faster.

The inner is a smaller circle, which is WHY the outer is faster.

 

The disk spins the same speed for the inner & outer rings, so the outer, being larger, throughputs much more data with the same rotation speeds.

Ever notice how a cd/dvd drive starts from the inner track, & the speed gets faster as it gets closer to the edge?

 

The speed will commonly get anywhere from 3 to 5 times faster by the time it reaches the edge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I recently downloaded Defraggler after being very impressed with C-Cleaner. I did the normal Windows XP de-frag and then used the Defraggler. It found and de-fragged more files than the XP version so id give it the thumbs up

 

Hope this helps,

Cheers,

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The outer edge of a drive is always faster.

When the hard drive accesses data it's constantly performing error checking / correction although most of this happens oblivious to the user.

If there's a problem area of the drive i.e. damaged sectors the error correction is much higher which results in slower data read by the operating system.

While it's true the edge spins faster it also has the highest error rate and compensation due to fact the disc wobbles more aggressively at the edges.

If you want to see how fast your hard drive performs from start to finish run a benchmark test with HD Tune - http://hdtune.com/

 

Richard S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Honestly, I wouldn't mind for there not to be a thread, as there is an entire subforum

http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showforum=21

 

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

 

ADVICE FOR USING CCleaner'S REGISTRY INTEGRITY SECTION

DON'T JUST CLEAN EVERYTHING THAT'S CHECKED OFF.

Do your Registry Cleaning in small bits (at the very least Check-mark by Check-mark)

ALWAYS BACKUP THE ENTRY, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'LL BREAK IF YOU DON'T.

Support at https://support.ccleaner.com/s/?language=en_US

Pro users file a PRIORITY SUPPORT via email support@ccleaner.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.