Defraggler v Auslogics

luci

Despite running in Safe Mode, the netbook still hung at 67% and was still 40% fragmented.

The defrag completed again on the laptop, but it said it was still 44% fragemented.

There are several topics in the Defraggler forums mentioning the same thing so it seems to be a common problem, but I haven't found a solution.

I'm still puzzled why Defraggler shows that all the pc's are fragmented, but Auslogics says they are not.

JethroTull_2

Each defragger has it's own yardstick for determining the extent of fragmentation in a system. Some will 'ignore' the fragmentation of system files (bad decision!), some will ignore the fragmentation of restore points etc, while others will report everything, so unless the volume is truly nearly 0% fragmented, the defrag reports will vary a bit.

That said, the 40% fragmentation you are seeing and what Defraggler/auslogics is unable to remedy is probably due to system files; both these utilities cannot defrag most system files like the MFT, page file, system restore points, other metadata etc. Only the commercial defrag utilities can do it.

Another 'bizzare' reason resulting in an 'increase' in fragmentation could be due to copy on write activity if the defragger does not respect the volume shadow copy service. New restore points can get created during the defrag, as I understand it. You can read more about this interesting behavior here
http://www.diskeeper.com/blog/post/2010/03/02/Holy-Cow.aspx

Richie-from-the-Boro

JethroTull, one heck of a band, but then I'm an acoustic music nut. I can see your point with the two Vista machines but not with the Win7, that's why I was looking for the commonality.

luci, do you have *.iso's or big movies / DVD's saved to your HDD ?

luci

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

luci, do you have *.iso's or big movies / DVD's saved to your HDD ?

No, I don't have any movies or videos at all, just a few hundred photos.

Slartibardfast_2

It'll be interesting to see what defraggler says after an offline Defrag with JKDefrag from Hiren's Boot CD. I'll do it tomorrow and let you know the results.

JKDefrag has now been renamed to MyDefrag and is available free (with it's only scheduler and scripting engine) for Windows, it's highly customisable and the only one I use these days.

Richie-from-the-Boro

luci wrote: »

No, I don't have any movies or videos at all, just a few hundred photos.

Jethro's idea on volume shadow copy service etc is spot on, but doesn't change the fact that I've never known it not work other than on drives with megga single sized file or folder

Prior to WinXP defrag would access the drive directly, bypassing the OS and they could do what they wanted. After WinXP it's limited to simply defragging a file, no dir sort, no optimization, etc. Performance-degrading disk IO is a pain in any event on any O/S. My primary reason for recommending defraggler & ccleaner is beacuse they are not very efficient, work quickly, and for that reason people will use them regularly.

All defraggers of any name use the same common API but apply different rules such as page file, MFT, *.exe, *.com etc.

Right, lets look at your problem a different way: Use the Windows defragger, not, the defraggler to do the same thing on all 3 machines. Is the same % problem happening with the Microsoft product ?

luci

The Windows Defragger in Vista doesn't actually tell you the % that's fragmented, but I just ran it and it said, "Your file system performance is good. You do not have to defrag at this time".

The results on the netbook with Win 7 agrees with Auslogics that there is only 1-2% fragmented.

debitcardmayhem

luci wrote: »

The Windows Defragger in Vista doesn't actually tell you the % that's fragmented, but I just ran it and it said, "Your file system performance is good. You do not have to defrag at this time".

The results on the netbook with Win 7 agrees with Auslogics that there is only 1-2% fragmented.

Looks like a case of QED , there then, it sounds like defraggler, however in Win 7 msoft might be on the right track, as for Vista i forgot how that works (or doesn't) the day I downloaded 7 beta :cool:

luci

Sorry, what's QED?

debitcardmayhem

luci wrote: »

Sorry, what's QED?

quod erat demonstrandum (which means "was to be demonstrated" used in ancient mathematics , and has been used since the advent of Forums/Blogs/etc basically to mean "Do you see what I'm saying"[Essex])