If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Placement of files on the hard drive is why the developers of the early
defraggers became obsessive about the number of options offered by their products. They thought people wanted to fine-tune the data on their hard drives, a carryover from the more static hard drive layouts on old mainframes. The reality is that the Windows environment, with all its glorious complexity, is 1000% more dynamic in its use of the hard drive. This is a good reason not to be very obsessive about whether a file gets placed in a "hole" between other files or tacked onto the free space immediately after the last file on the drive. Nevertheless, it troubles me to see huge gaping holes resulting from files being splattered all over the drive, because I know damned well that the disk heads dance back and forth across longer distances to access data across the entire drive. If the files are all shoved down at one end of the hard drive, the average hard drive seek times are reduced quite a bit, and the system goes a little faster. The best answer? Hey, keep speedisk and diskeeper both on the hard drive. They don't take up much space. Run speeddisk once in a while to slide all the files to one end of the hard drive. Run diskeeper to do a quick and dirty defrag. For the purposes of 99.9% of us, it is not worth even trying to use some sort of instrumentation to see which provides the best result. Software instrumentation contaminates the results. Hardware instrumentation is too expensive for all but the hard drive design labs. And Windows does not lend itself to repeatability of closely controlled tests... Ben Myers On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:19:11 -0500, "Turner Morgan" wrote: I will be removing Diskeeper from my system and staying with the Norton for now or until something better comes along. One of the reasons I was checking other stuff out was because Speedisk takes so long, even on my 2g speed system. However, the reason it takes so long was also pointed out to me as being the reason of going the extra mile and compressing along with defragmenting. I should point out that there is a slight disadvantage to Norton's compacting. And that is, depending on cluster size (or is it sector size?) of the disk, when you have to add data to a file that might result in the new data being added to the end of the "compact" area of the disk, that is, far away from the parent file. With DiskKeeper's leaving holes between "compact" areas, the new data could get placed closer to the parent file. Hence, you could suffer a performance hit, i.e., slower access time to read all the file's data, with Norton's method. Also, the next time you defrag and compact with Norton, all those intervening files have to be moved further "down" the disk to make room for the fragments of new data to be added to the parent file. With the DiskKeeper method, there may be an empty space closer to the parent file which would result in faster access to all the file's pieces plus faster defragmenting because not so many files would have to be moved to append the new data to the parent file. Confused? BTW, I am using the speedisk that comes with an older version of Norton Tools, the 2002 release. It ran real quickly on my older FAT32 systems but since moving to NTFS systems with XP, it has really turned into a slug. Could another reason for the slowness be that defragmentation and compressing are done differently on NTFS systems thus the need to goto a newer version of speedisk? I can't really comment on this. I'm not terribly familiar with the differences between FAT32 and NTFS. If just read that NTFS is "better" than FAT32. And, by the way, most of what I said above applies to FAT32; I assume it works for NTFS also. Maybe Ben could help out here? I just know that I have SystemWorks 2005 and when I have Speedisk defrag and compact the 120Gb drive in my 700XL (only about 1/3 used) I just go into the hamshack, fire up the transceiver and make a few contacts because I know Speedisk is going to take some time, usually 1.5 hours, to finish the job. It couldn't hurt to do the upgrade, but I'm not sure that Symantec made all that many changes or improvements between the 2004 and 2005 versions. So, if you can find a copy of SystemWorks 2004 around (the local Staples had the 2004 version still on the shelf just before Christmas), you might save a few bucks over the 2005 version. Regards, Turner |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Ben Myers wrote:
The Windows XP defragger, a crippled Diskeeper in poor disguise, is truly crippled though. A real defragger shoves all the files to one end of the hard drive to speed up disk accesses further. The Windows XP defragger apparently does defragment most of the files though, altho you can never tell with Micro$oft. Files in use by the system cannot be defragmented, so boot in safe mode for a better defragging experience. Sysutils has a free page file defragger on its web site, to take care of page file defragmentation... Ben Myers ben can you please post a link to the page file defragmenter. i have bee looking on sysutils and have not been able to find it. any help would be greatly appreciated. On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:24:14 -0700, "Tom Clydesdale" wrote: For whatever it might be worth I normally run the defragmenter that came with WindowsXP and Norton agrees that the resulting drive is 100% defragged. Who knows? (The WinXP version runs about 3 times as fast as the Norton version ergo I use it.) ".@." [email protected] wrote in message news I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run. I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40% fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via the GUI. So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one actually knows in the first place. Thanks in advance & Regards, |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Found via google with the search argument "defragment page file", without the
quotes: http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/fr...gedefrag.shtml .... Ben Myers On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:20:02 GMT, bob brozewicz wrote: Ben Myers wrote: The Windows XP defragger, a crippled Diskeeper in poor disguise, is truly crippled though. A real defragger shoves all the files to one end of the hard drive to speed up disk accesses further. The Windows XP defragger apparently does defragment most of the files though, altho you can never tell with Micro$oft. Files in use by the system cannot be defragmented, so boot in safe mode for a better defragging experience. Sysutils has a free page file defragger on its web site, to take care of page file defragmentation... Ben Myers ben can you please post a link to the page file defragmenter. i have bee looking on sysutils and have not been able to find it. any help would be greatly appreciated. On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:24:14 -0700, "Tom Clydesdale" wrote: For whatever it might be worth I normally run the defragmenter that came with WindowsXP and Norton agrees that the resulting drive is 100% defragged. Who knows? (The WinXP version runs about 3 times as fast as the Norton version ergo I use it.) ".@." [email protected] wrote in message news I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run. I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40% fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via the GUI. So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one actually knows in the first place. Thanks in advance & Regards, |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ben Myers wrote:
Found via google with the search argument "defragment page file", without the quotes: http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/fr...gedefrag.shtml ... Ben Myers after i ask i did uses google and found it on sysinternals and not sysutils. thanks On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:20:02 GMT, bob brozewicz wrote: Ben Myers wrote: The Windows XP defragger, a crippled Diskeeper in poor disguise, is truly crippled though. A real defragger shoves all the files to one end of the hard drive to speed up disk accesses further. The Windows XP defragger apparently does defragment most of the files though, altho you can never tell with Micro$oft. Files in use by the system cannot be defragmented, so boot in safe mode for a better defragging experience. Sysutils has a free page file defragger on its web site, to take care of page file defragmentation... Ben Myers ben can you please post a link to the page file defragmenter. i have bee looking on sysutils and have not been able to find it. any help would be greatly appreciated. On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:24:14 -0700, "Tom Clydesdale" wrote: For whatever it might be worth I normally run the defragmenter that came with WindowsXP and Norton agrees that the resulting drive is 100% defragged. Who knows? (The WinXP version runs about 3 times as fast as the Norton version ergo I use it.) ".@." [email protected] wrote in message news I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run. I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40% fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via the GUI. So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one actually knows in the first place. Thanks in advance & Regards, |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry. In my haste to post a response and move on to other things, the names of
sometimes get scrambled up in my head. Main thing is you found it, and it works... Ben On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:30:58 GMT, bob brozewicz wrote: Ben Myers wrote: Found via google with the search argument "defragment page file", without the quotes: http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/fr...gedefrag.shtml ... Ben Myers after i ask i did uses google and found it on sysinternals and not sysutils. thanks On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:20:02 GMT, bob brozewicz wrote: Ben Myers wrote: The Windows XP defragger, a crippled Diskeeper in poor disguise, is truly crippled though. A real defragger shoves all the files to one end of the hard drive to speed up disk accesses further. The Windows XP defragger apparently does defragment most of the files though, altho you can never tell with Micro$oft. Files in use by the system cannot be defragmented, so boot in safe mode for a better defragging experience. Sysutils has a free page file defragger on its web site, to take care of page file defragmentation... Ben Myers ben can you please post a link to the page file defragmenter. i have bee looking on sysutils and have not been able to find it. any help would be greatly appreciated. On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:24:14 -0700, "Tom Clydesdale" wrote: For whatever it might be worth I normally run the defragmenter that came with WindowsXP and Norton agrees that the resulting drive is 100% defragged. Who knows? (The WinXP version runs about 3 times as fast as the Norton version ergo I use it.) ".@." [email protected] wrote in message news I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run. I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40% fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via the GUI. So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one actually knows in the first place. Thanks in advance & Regards, |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
sorry to top post....
btw do you happen to be the same ben myers that help me upgrade my kids compaq 5000 pc before xmas. if you remember, i had a ton of questions. if you are he, i really appreciated all your help, the upgrade went off with little problems. my kids were happy as could be with the upgrade. i hate to say it, they have a FASTER machine than mine now. Ben Myers wrote: Sorry. In my haste to post a response and move on to other things, the names of sometimes get scrambled up in my head. Main thing is you found it, and it works... Ben On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:30:58 GMT, bob brozewicz wrote: Ben Myers wrote: Found via google with the search argument "defragment page file", without the quotes: http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/fr...gedefrag.shtml ... Ben Myers after i ask i did uses google and found it on sysinternals and not sysutils. thanks On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:20:02 GMT, bob brozewicz wrote: Ben Myers wrote: The Windows XP defragger, a crippled Diskeeper in poor disguise, is truly crippled though. A real defragger shoves all the files to one end of the hard drive to speed up disk accesses further. The Windows XP defragger apparently does defragment most of the files though, altho you can never tell with Micro$oft. Files in use by the system cannot be defragmented, so boot in safe mode for a better defragging experience. Sysutils has a free page file defragger on its web site, to take care of page file defragmentation... Ben Myers ben can you please post a link to the page file defragmenter. i have bee looking on sysutils and have not been able to find it. any help would be greatly appreciated. On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:24:14 -0700, "Tom Clydesdale" wrote: For whatever it might be worth I normally run the defragmenter that came with WindowsXP and Norton agrees that the resulting drive is 100% defragged. Who knows? (The WinXP version runs about 3 times as fast as the Norton version ergo I use it.) ".@." [email protected] wrote in message newses2v0pcenq4l6k0i7sco2bpii99cium8i@4ax. com... I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run. I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40% fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via the GUI. So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one actually knows in the first place. Thanks in advance & Regards, |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Must have been me. I seem to be the only Ben Myers posting in the computer
newsgroups. There are clones of myself who are English journalists/authors, experts on beer, and who knows what else. Glad it worked out for you... Ben On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:47:45 GMT, bob brozewicz wrote: sorry to top post.... btw do you happen to be the same ben myers that help me upgrade my kids compaq 5000 pc before xmas. if you remember, i had a ton of questions. if you are he, i really appreciated all your help, the upgrade went off with little problems. my kids were happy as could be with the upgrade. i hate to say it, they have a FASTER machine than mine now. Ben Myers wrote: Sorry. In my haste to post a response and move on to other things, the names of sometimes get scrambled up in my head. Main thing is you found it, and it works... Ben On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:30:58 GMT, bob brozewicz wrote: Ben Myers wrote: Found via google with the search argument "defragment page file", without the quotes: http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/fr...gedefrag.shtml ... Ben Myers after i ask i did uses google and found it on sysinternals and not sysutils. thanks On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:20:02 GMT, bob brozewicz wrote: Ben Myers wrote: The Windows XP defragger, a crippled Diskeeper in poor disguise, is truly crippled though. A real defragger shoves all the files to one end of the hard drive to speed up disk accesses further. The Windows XP defragger apparently does defragment most of the files though, altho you can never tell with Micro$oft. Files in use by the system cannot be defragmented, so boot in safe mode for a better defragging experience. Sysutils has a free page file defragger on its web site, to take care of page file defragmentation... Ben Myers ben can you please post a link to the page file defragmenter. i have bee looking on sysutils and have not been able to find it. any help would be greatly appreciated. On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:24:14 -0700, "Tom Clydesdale" wrote: For whatever it might be worth I normally run the defragmenter that came with WindowsXP and Norton agrees that the resulting drive is 100% defragged. Who knows? (The WinXP version runs about 3 times as fast as the Norton version ergo I use it.) ".@." [email protected] wrote in message newses2v0pcenq4l6k0i7sco2bpii99cium8i@4ax .com... I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run. I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40% fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via the GUI. So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one actually knows in the first place. Thanks in advance & Regards, |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Ben Myers wrote:
For the purposes of 99.9% of us, it is not worth even trying to use some sort of instrumentation to see which provides the best result. Software instrumentation contaminates the results. ... Yes, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies to computers also. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Diskeeper error messages | Louise | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | May 31st 04 09:20 PM |
Diskeeper settings?????? | Roo | General | 2 | March 4th 04 09:03 PM |
maxtor usb drive and Diskeeper | Leanin' Cedar | Dell Computers | 7 | February 18th 04 07:01 AM |
OT?: Best Disk Defrag Software | bigmike | Nvidia Videocards | 6 | January 23rd 04 10:43 PM |