Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums
Asagrim

defragging at 7% in 3 days on 660GB non-OS drive

Recommended Posts

Hi there!

I have a 660GB partition on a 3TB non-system drive I've been using NTFS compression on when it was almost full, then filled it even more as more free space became available. I never defragmented this drive before, move files quite frequently from/to it, and had it for 3 years, so I ended up with 86% fragmentation and about 1.43 million file fragments (mostly due to the NTFS compression I bet). Even so, with Defraggler barely utilizing any system resources, I don't think 7% in 3 days is normal behavior. I don't pretend to know how Defraggler is supposed to work under the hood, but I find it odd that it doesn't fully utilize available system resources. It barely has any I/O load on the drive it's defragmenting and utilizes only 1/4th of the idle CPU performance with plenty of free RAM left. The free space is not the recommended 10%, but is still more than twice the size of my largest file on the partition. No other processes are running that would actively use any of the drive's partitions. No paging, hibernation, system restore, or any other system file or temporary cache is currently allocated to this drive, for the time being I made it completely idle for Defraggler to use.

Is there something I missed that would increase the speed of the defragmenting process on this drive?

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps helps the "file list" defragmentation

 

- file list -> analyze -> select all or only that files you want at first to defrag -> "defrag checked"

 

 

ps: a 660 gb partition on a 3 tb hd?

 

your freespace on this 660 gb partition is lower than 66 gb? and the biggest file is 30 gb? is this right?

Quote

The free space is not the recommended 10%, but is still more than twice the size of my largest file on the partition.

perhaps dont defrag this big files -> copy this kind of large files to another partition on your 3 tb hd. make the file-list-defragemtation and after this is complete -> copy this large files back to your 660 gb partition. (normaly it make your big files into unfragmendet files)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to defragment the entire partition, I do not have a file preference. The entire drive consists of large files, it contains all the raw footage for my youtube channel, so I can't move them to another partition and back again to get rid of fragmentation that way. I do not have any free space whatsoever on my other partitions (double digit megabytes).

The free space on the partition I am defragmenting is 11.7GB, my largest file is 4.8GB.

Eventually I want to consolidate the free space too, so when I have system files and temp storage back their fragmentation won't hog performance, but right now, that seems like something I won't be able to do until early summer. I wish I was exaggerating...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps another thing will help:

 

quick defrag:

 

go to

- settings - options - quick defrag - custom rules - take rule 2 and 4

 

rule 2 "have more than" -> if you want "2" fragments

rule 4 "are smaller than" -> if you want "500" MB -> ok

 

choose your drive/partition

 

click on the right side of "defrag" button on the down-arrow and take "quick defrag"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- I rarely do a "Full Defrag". Only once or twice since I came across Defraggler (DF). I only let DF defrag all fragmented files.

- I also use DF to move all system files to the beginning of the drive and all non-system files to the end of the drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Willy2 said:

- I rarely do a "Full Defrag". Only once or twice since I came across Defraggler (DF). I only let DF defrag all fragmented files.

i too, willy2 :) its faster and i is good enough against fragmentation B) but the postopener dont want this...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I try to do a Quick Defrag with custom rules as suggested, Defraggler just skips over the entire partition in about 4 minutes and calls it done. The only way I'm gonna defragment files to an acceptable level is by doing a full defrag, and I'm looking for options to make it finish faster than two months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Willy2 said:

I only let DF defrag all fragmented files.

@asagrim --> i think its the fastest way... if you let out the largest files from the list (maybe all files greater than 800 mb... or something  you mean whats right for you).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2.3.2018 at 05:53, Asagrim said:

so I ended up with 86% fragmentation and about 1.43 million file fragments

but with your fragmentation... it takes his time for defragmentation. i dont know if this are two months...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to defragment the large files too. Like I mentioned before, they are video files for my youtube channel, and they are so fragmented I can not use the seek bar without my media player momentarily freezing, and that makes my job - trying to find suitable clips for a mashup - practically impossible.

And yes, it would take two months. If I wouldn't turn off my computer at all, and if Defraggler wouldn't freeze, it would take 50 days to finish, but I need to restart my computer, I need to turn it off for maintenance, I can have a power outage... any number of scenarios where I would have to start from the beginning and Defraggler would take time until it catches up to where it left off. So I was fairly optimistic with two months.

I need to make Defraggler faster, not use a different method for defragmenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Defraggler is indeed known to use a (fairly) high amount of CPU in combination with low disk I/O and low memory usage when it's performing its tasks.

- The amount of free space on your HD is 11 GB / 660 GB  * 100% = 1.6 %. Then it's no wonder that every (Windows) copy/move/read operation involving that drive will take (much) more time. Including using Defraggler, no matter what option you choose. I fear there's no way around to move between say 30 (5% of 660 GB) or 60 GB (10% of 660 GB) of video files to another (extra) drive. Then I am convinced that every Defraggler option will perform better.

- Having all videos defragmented doesn't automatically mean that your media player will perform better. I have the same problem with (some of) my (defragmented) large video files as well. Although I perhaps don't use the most sophisticated media player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know for a fact that my media player behaves the way it does because the files are too fragmented. When I copy a problematic video file over to a different drive, the problem goes completely away, but doing that for every single video file before opening them would defeat the whole purpose, since it wouldn't be any faster than just viewing them fragmented as they are, and patiently waiting for my media player to jump to the selected section when I click on the seek bar.

Like I mentioned in my initial post, Defraggler doesn't use much CPU at all for me, it spikes at 29%, while averages at 22% so with other programs factored in, I basically have a 50-70 percentile idle performance it could use, but doesn't. I have the impression it could go faster if it would use all resources properly i.e. as much as available, but it doesn't, it just smoothly idles away while performing very slowly. I kind of hoped for a developer response on this one, since I am convinced that this is completely abnormal behavior. In nearly 3 decades of using a computer I never had a software that didn't use all the available performance it needed to perform a resource intensive task in order to finish as fast as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- The current version of Defraggler (v2.21) was released years ago. The program is known to have "a few rough edges" and it seems the developers never found a good solution to get rid of those "rough edges". I fear the developers "lost interest" in trying to improve the program code (and that includes making better use of the CPU's processing power) or the developers have other priorities. And that's a pity because I use the program every day.

- Question: Do you see a difference between a compressed file and a non compressed (video-)file when you open it with your mediaplayer ? (I never had to compress files in order to free up space)

- I also could imagine that Defraggler could speed up the defragmenting process when it would read the files (to be physically moved) into memory before it starts to (physically) move those files. Currently that doesn't seem to be the case when I look at the resource monitor in my Windows 7 system.

- The "heavy lifting" of moving files is done by an Windows API and I could imagine that that API has "a number of flaws" as well. Don't know what to make of it.

(Developers of Defraggler:  Are you reading this thread/these posts ???)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A compressed video file takes a split second longer to open, but it practically makes no difference when it's already playing. NTFS compression is not making file operations on any modern computer any slower, it takes a bit more CPU performance to copy/move files, but that's it. I've been using NTFS compression by default practically for 17 years without ill effect. I've also been using Defraggler since about 2010 but it has never been this slow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- But was that partition or a similar drive this full (1.6% free) in the past as well ?

Suggestions:

1) Increase the amount of free space to 10%.

2) Use "Defrag Freespace" and/or "Defrag Freespace (allow fragmentation)" to create the largest amount of contiguous amount of free space.

3) then start to defrag the drive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Used to be far less. I have a second 3TB drive I use as a manual backup for the first, and I just can't leave 272 GB free in case I want to defragment it, it's a waste of space. I'd sooner buy a 1TB drive and call this whole thing off. Buying a hard drive of any size the first place I'm being scammed out of 10% storage space first because manufacturers work with decimal numbers and a second 10% because I need that space to defragment. I say thanks but no thanks to that. Besides, why would this process need a fixed percentage the first place? Why would it need the same percentage of free space on a 160GB drive than a 10TB drive if they are formatted with the same file system to the same cluster size and both having 2-4 GB files on them? I can't see why 10% is the magic number. I have twice as much free space than my largest file, that means the defragmenting process has enough free space to work with to move any one of my files around in a single segment if it wanted to. How can a software be so ineffective at playing Tower of Hanoi?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

60 GB (10% of 660 GB

normally 15% freespace...

Quote

Why would it need the same percentage of free space on a 160GB drive than a 10TB drive if they are formatted with the same file system to the same cluster size and both having 2-4 GB files on them?

because of the amoung of files.

with 15 % in relation to summary size of the hd it seems to be enough place to move fragmended files into one to another place on the hd where is enough place to save it as one unfragmended file and enough free space to move more another files...

Quote

I have twice as much free space than my largest file, that means the defragmenting process has enough free space to work with to move any one of my files around in a single segment if it wanted to

definitivly no. you have certainly more files with larger size...?

 

Quote

The amount of free space on your HD is 11 GB / 660 GB  * 100% = 1.6 %. Then it's no wonder that every (Windows) copy/move/read operation involving that drive will take (much) more time. Including using Defraggler, no matter what option you choose. I fear there's no way around to move between say 30 (5% of 660 GB) or 60 GB (10% of 660 GB) of video files to another (extra) drive. Then I am convinced that every Defraggler option will perform better.

simply yes from me :)

 

Quote

ended up with 86% fragmentation and about 1.43 million file fragments

 

im afraid, but with this size of fragmentation any defraggler would work for the ages

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...