1.01.073 Beta Still Unacceptable

[Digerati]

I am still very disappointed with the performance of Defraggler. I was encouraged when the Change Log for v1.01.073 listed the following:

 

 

 

- Completely new Defrag algorithm, which is faster and better designed.

 

- Defrag freespace now a separate option.

 

- Updated UI.

 

- Minor bug fixes.

However, it is worse than before.

 

I tested it on my 100Gb WD HD that has ONLY 8.4Gb of space used - that is, there is still a whopping 90+Gb of free space available. To ensure there would be minimal interference, I booted into Safe Mode, then used CCleaner (with "older than 48 hours" unchecked) first to avoid defragging with tons of tiny temp files. After 5 hours!!!!, I terminated Defraggler out of frustration. XP's own defragger took 40 minutes with the same image.

 

I think Piriform needs to head back to drawing board.

 

I do like the UI. However, the Drive Map Legend is way too big - taking up way too much room for those that like to watch what is happening.

 

Why is there not an option to defrag both files and free space at the same time as there was with previous versions? If that is how this version was supposed to become faster, it failed.

 

That said, this is a Beta - I look forward to trying out the next version as I think it shows promise.

[websquad]

.... That said, this is a Beta - I look forward to trying out the next version as I think it shows promise.

 

I am surprised ... I thought that 99% of these applications used the same Microsoft API's. And because of that, I though that most would have similar performance characteristics ... sad!

[luckyarthur]

To ensure there would be minimal interference, I booted into Safe Mode . . .

 

That was your big mistake. In safe mode the hard drive transfers data at a snail's pace. Run it again in regular mode and see what happens.

 

Others will have to deal with your other questions.

 

[Digerati]

That was your big mistake. In safe mode the hard drive transfers data at a snail's pace. Run it again in regular mode and see what happens.

 

Others will have to deal with your other questions.

 

Nope - sorry Arther but that is not a big mistake - in fact, Safe Mode is the ONLY way to ensure the maximum number of files can be defragged - for the boot drive anyway. If I have to boot normally, when all kinds of additional drivers and applets are running (with open files), that means an inefficient defrag and another problem with Defraggler.

[luckyarthur]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the speed of the hard drive in safe mode.

 

What I overlooked the first time was when you wrote "to avoid defragging with tons of tiny temp files." Why do you have tons of temp files? What are you saving them for? If you're afraid to delete them outrigtht, move them to a different folder for about a week and if everything still runs okay then get rid of them. I routinely delete my temporary files and find that my machine runs much better as a result.

 

I also run Defraggler in a few minutes, not in hours. A friend's machine kept hanging up until I discovered that there were about a half-dozen files that were causing the problem, so I just uncheck those and Defraggler runs just fine.

 

[Digerati]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the speed of the hard drive in safe mode.

Huh? I did not disagree about speed - I said defragging in normal mode is not as efficient. You having to uncheck files simply proves my point as now those files will remain fragmented. On a crowded drive, fragmented files can contribute to more fragmentation.

 

And the fact that XP's own rudimentary defragger was able to defrag the same image in less than an hour in Safe Mode surely suggests that Safe Mode is not the problem you would have others think.

 

I am not looking for Defraggler to be the fasted defragger around, but it should be comparable.

 

Why do you have tons of temp files? What are you saving them for?

Huh? It appears you have difficulty understanding what you read, or you are just not reading what is said. I never disagreed about speed and I never said I save temp files! Do NOT put words in my mouth!!

 

Not only did I not say anything about wanting to save temp files, I made it a point to mention changing the default "48 hour" setting in CCleaner to rid the system of even more temp files.

 

The facts are if you, or anybody surfs the Internet for a day or two you will have a bunch (often many 1000s) of small temporary files and cookies all over your drive (unless you changed the defaults and have your browser delete all temp files upon exit). It is counterproductive to defrag a hard drive full of tiny temporary Internet files. That's just a fact. It is also a fact that most open files cannot be moved and so cannot be defragged. Therefore defragging the boot drive in Safe Mode offers the best environment for the most thorough and efficient defragging (outside of pulling the boot drive and defragging with another machine - not very convenient). Other drives, as long as nothing is running from them, can be defragged just fine with a normal boot.

 

I also run Defraggler in a few minutes, not in hours.

That's good. But it proves only that Defraggler ran fine on that machine. That does not mean the "beta" is ready for release as clearly it is not; Defraggler does not run fine other machines.

 

Now you can defend Defraggler all you want, that's your choice. But understand that is not the point of beta testing! But hey, whatever makes your boat float - as long as you comment on what is actually said and don't make stuff up or twist folk's words around, I don't care.

 

I'm doing beta testing (on many machines - not just a couple, and with 4 different operating systems and 2 file systems), and reporting our findings. That's the job of a beta tester - disputing the testing methods of other testers is not!

 

A friend's machine kept hanging up until I discovered that there were about a half-dozen files that were causing the problem, so I just uncheck those and Defraggler runs just fine.

Hmmm, if I were running this beta program, that would be something I would want to know about. There might be something in common with those 6 files that might help the developers - I don't see where you posted findings about 6 files causing the program to hang. 1 compacted file, but not 6. That's too bad since according to the Defraggler home page here, Defraggler's claim is as a "file" defragger and not really a drive defragger - note it says,

It differs from other defrag tools on the market, by enabling you to quickly and simply defrag the files you want to, without having to process the whole drive. Simply run it, select the file and defragment in seconds. No more struggling with the Windows defragmentation tool!

 

Granted, I am no expert on drive file systems, fragmentation, or defragmentation, but the link in my sig would suggest I've been around the IT Hardware block a couple times - enough to know when something works correctly, and when it doesn't. Defraggler is getting there, and based on my experience with other Piriform products, it will get there. But it is not there yet. It is our job as testers to help them do that.

[Rex101]

"defrag freespace" definitely needs to be included (for my needs at least). otherwise I have to run the process twice which is stupid. Ideally there should be a preferences like with CCleaner.

 

my main suggestions would be:

 

options such as:

 

- defrag freespace

- allow fragmentation

- automatically defrag drive if more than X fragments exsist

 

- priority (normal/background)

 

- show drive map legend in status bar

 

- check for newer version

 

and in the main window, "estimated time remaining" would be nice. and maybe some design to the little progress rectangle, at the moment it looks too code-ish.

 

would be nice to see "check drive for errors" as a main button on the right.

 

I've also noticed since the latest update that it doesn't optimize the disk by putting them at the start/outside of the disk...talking about the feedback grid here. so what i see now is 2 lines of blue squares and then skips a few lines and some more blue squares randomly scattered about. this is even after the second run of defrag freespace.

 

having said all that, it does seem much faster.

[Digerati]

- automatically defrag drive if more than X fragments exsist

 

- priority (normal/background)

It must be noted automatic defragging would require a "real-time" presence. That is, some chunk of code would have to be loaded at every boot. I personally am concerned with all the programs that attempt to load up components at start, consuming even more precious RAM. With bad guys forcing us to load a full arsenal of anti-malware tools, and with anti-malware makers forcing bloated unneeded features on us every time we turn around, it is no wonder 1Gb of RAM is not enough anymore. It used be considered "more than we'll ever need!"

 

And the challenge with running in the background (BTW, this option is already there - were you looking for something different?) is the other programs running will be adding, changing, and deleting files at the same time, which disrupts the defragging process and can cause other defrag programs to constantly start over. This is another reason to run in Safe Mode, but is also the reason I start the defrag program, then walk away. Perhaps scheduled defragging?

 

I also note, in spite of what many defrag program makers would have us believe, the vast majority of users do NOT need to defrag frequently. This is particularly true today with monster drives formatted with NTFS and lots of free space. Folks that need more frequent defragging are those with drives running low on free space, and for folks that frequently install, then later uninstall lots of programs.

 

I duly note that you said "Options" - and so if I can disable them, then that would be fine with me.

 

- show drive map legend in status bar

That's an excellent idea!

 

The time remaining would be nice, but I am not sure how they could do that along with your suggestion to be able to run in the background as everything you do in the foreground will affect available resources for the background process.

 

Defrag Freespace (allow fragmentation) is an option already. Did you mean something different?

[Rex101]

hi Digerati,

 

all of the options are there already as you said, but personally i think it would be just easier to have these all grouped into an options box. i've added a few suggestions, but the rest are there in the program.

 

regards "background", this is the option to reduce the cpu usage as opposed to crap running when u are not even using defraggler (i am a serious xp/vista "tweaker" so i turn off a lot of the crap that runs in the OS....let alone adding any MORE....so i totally agree with you there man). action >priority > normal/background - is a variable so that would best be either added to the options or removed completely and if the user minimizes the program it could ask "would you like to change the priority to background for less cpu usage" or something like that.

 

i can't speak for the "general" user, but I work with a lot of audio wav/aiff files (some very large), and with 3D for rendering out image sequences (these can be excessive in both quantity and size. so a regular defrag of my partitions is a normal event (fortnightly or monthly)...also audio programs can have errors if the drive is not defraged as it looks for the next cluster to write to especially at high sample rates as i use in my home studio 96kHz/24-bit.

 

well thats me for the moment. this is still running since my first post and is at 54% only of a 150gb partition.

[Digerati]

personally i think it would be just easier to have these all grouped into an options box.

You mean you don't like various menu options scattered across and buried within multiple menus and submenus? lol

 

I agree. There is plenty of room next to Analyze, Defrag, and Stop buttons to add the other options. That's a good idea.

 

Do note most of the options are available with the right-click context menu - but again, some are nestled in a sub-menu. Having said that, in terms of beta testing, all the buttons do work - so that is good.

[Rex101]

what can i say....i'm a plug and play kinda guy!!

[six..pack]

@ Digerati

 

Use the DOS version of defraggler

 

It works faster. It works properly.

[six..pack]

@ Digerati

 

Use the DOS version of defraggler

 

It works faster. It works properly.

[six..pack]

@ Digerati

 

Use the DOS version of defraggler

 

It works faster. It works properly.