A question about defraggers

I've often heard that one should not use different defrag programs to defrag one's hard drive because they use different algorithms to do their work. OK, fine. But what difference does it make HOW the drive is defragged, as long as it IS defragged? It's like popping a balloon or changing a flat tire or scrambling an egg: it doesn't matter how you get the job done, the end result is the same, right? A defragged drive is a defragged drive regardless of how it's done, right? Windows doesn't care how the drive was defragged as long as it is, indeed, defragged. So, what's the deal with different defraggers? I know some do a more thorough and a more complete job than others, some offer additional 'optimizing', but in the end, isn't a defragged drive a defragged drive regardless of who defragged it???
:confused

(let's not get into the whole "optimization" thing - let's keep this to just defragging . . . at least for now )

 

Different defraggers use different methods, thus the result is often very different!

These different methods may also have different prerequisites, and may take a very different time to finish their work.

The four different defraggers I have tried:

1. Windows defragger: requires at least 15% free space on the partition to defrag; very slow.
2. Diskeeper: various defragmentation levels can be specified; boot-time operation can defrag MFT, page file, folders file. Very fast. (Not free, of course.)
3. Diskeeper Lite: last free version issued was DKL 9; no boot-time defragmentation, but still very fast for normal operation.
4. Defraggler: first-time defrag may take very long time! It took some 48 hours when I used it first - on a partition that had just been completely defragged by Diskeeper. It was 10% more fragmented than when it started. (That was an early version of Defraggler, but I still have some doubts about that software.)

 

Just an additional word on the basic two defragmentation levels that can be achieved:

1. Just defrag files: place all file fragments together, but leave the defagmented files just where they are. Best and fastest method.
2. Defrag files, and arrange them as a contiguous data space, followed by a contiguous free space. Takes much longer, and files will start quicker to fragment again.

 

OK - this is all fine and good, but like I originally said:

. . . . and . . . .

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Diskeeper Lite was used as the base for the Windows built-in defrag program, but I could be wrong, or I might have read some erroneous info. I never was a fan of Defraggler, so that's not really an issue. I guess I'm wondering what difference does it make if you defrag using "App A" or "App B" just as long as it does a good job, and if "App A" and "App B" both do a good job of defragging, then why should it matter if you use "App A" one week, "App B" the next week, then "App A" again, and so on.... if they both defrag the drive well, does it really matter how they do it as long as Windows 'sees' the drive as defragged?

I understand how this may be the fastest, but why is it "best"? Is it "best" only because it is fastest?

 

More information on defragging than I need to know. I only use the windows disk defragmenter set to defrag monthly. Never understood the need for so many programs.

http://donnedwards.openaccess.co.za/2007/06/great-defrag-shootout-all.html

 

Diskeeper, Diskeeper Lite, and the Windows defragger all use the same core engine developed by Executive Software. I guess that Diskeeper's engine is far more developed by now, and the Windows defragger uses an old core engine.

One thing certainly is the speed; if Windows defragger needs 1 hour to do the same as Diskeeper does in 5 minutes, that is a definite plus for me.

The other part is how much files one product leaves fragmented. Of course there are many files that need absolutely no defragmentation, as they will probably never be used at all (e.g. Windows Restore Points). Other files may be so large that they can anyway never be read by an application as one chunk, so they being fragmented actually makes no difference.

And then there are the additional system files (MFT, page file, folders file) that can only be defragged by specialized programs like Diskeeper. This makes a big difference in my view. MFT and folders file are accessed every time any file is opened or closed. The page file is accessed every time memory is paged out or in.

It is best because it leaves individual files to grow without necessarily getting fragmented again.

If you have all data in one large contiguous junk, adding data to any of these files will immediately result in new fragmentation; this is not the case with the other method.

 

Thanks pwillener, lots of good stuff there..... I was trying to avoid throwing 'name brands' in to this discussion, but the reason I started this is because I had been using Auslogics Defrag to defrag my drive (Win7 x64 if it matters), but I decided to switch to IObit Smart Defrag for some reason (I have no idea why). It has good ratings here at MG, but it seems that my PC now boots quite a bit slower since I started using IObit but once Windows has completely loaded, everything runs fine . . . .

 

I have heard about both these products, but never tried them. (It was never my goal to become a defrag guru :cool ).

Some of the more sophisticated defraggers start one or more services during startup; that is why startup may become slightly (or noticeably) slower. Check your running services if any of them may be related to the IObit Smart Defrag program.

P.S.

I meant "chunk", of course...

 

IMHO, it's not a good idea to switch back and forth between defragers.

The reason is that with many of them, there are at least two things
being done. One is to simply defragment files so that if they occupy more than
one cluster, the file is written so that all of the clusters for that file are contiguous.

The second thing is that some files are moved and grouped together on one area of the disk. Different defragmenters arrange the files differently, so when
you switch between Apps, they have to "undo" some of the 'arranging' work
done by the other.

I have been using MyDefrag which is a later version of JKDefrag. This, by the way, is an MG Pick on the Drive Utilities page

MA just added one that I had suggested which is simply a fast defragmenter:
Contig 1.55

 

My personal experience on a few defraggers.

Windows: never did a good job of putting everything closer together. The analyze results showed data or files all over the place, even after defrag.

Auslogics: pretty much the same. It's software looked pretty though.

The current one I use is Puran Defrag: http://majorgeeks.com/Puran_Defrag_Free_Edition_d6360.html

I'm very happy with the last one and will stick with it. For the first time in my puter life I see a contiguous chunk in the front. I see that chunk when I press analyze in Windows Defrag to see the end result after the Puran defrag. It has more functions than just the defrag. Perhaps that's what my machine needed. I also feel it did speed up my machine, especially after the first use when I did a boot defrag and included all the other available options.

 

This is real nice, thanks for posting this, I've just used it and love it. Reminds me of the old Norton product I used on my Classic Mac, it did a true Optimization as well as defragging...

 

Thank you for letting us know that you love Puran Defrag and yes I love it too.

 

As I explained in one of my earlier posts, this is not necessarily a good thing. This means that as soon as any file in that contiguous chunk expands, it will automatically and immediately become fragmented again.

If there is some space left between the files, they can expand without getting fragmented.

Defragmenting is about putting individual fragmented files back together, not putting "everything" together.

 

In my experience not at all, just a tiny bit. I've been using this software for numerous months now. As I explained in my previous post, I did a boot defrag and used ALL THE OTHER FEATURES that are available in Puran Defrag. Prior to using Puran Defrag, the windows defrag showed the files all over the place from beginning to end, even after a defrag with windows own defrag for years and auslogics for years after that.

 

I have since removed IObit Defrag, and I'm going to try Puran for a month or two and we'll see how it goes. I've used MyDefrag in the past on other PCs (not on my home PC) that had SERIOUS fragmentation, and it did an astounding job. However, I have never used it on any type of regular basis. I see now that there is another MyDefrag 'version': the MyDefrag PowerGUI which appears to add lots of extra functionality to the standard MyDefrag which is built on the original JkDefragGUI which is based on the excellent GPL released JkDefrag availble at SourceForge (I think). So - that's where I'm at now.

This has all been very informative . . . any more input is invited....

 

@dlb. Please let us know what you think about Puran Defrag?

Thank you.

 

There was another defrager that was part of a Norton Works progam that worked pretty good on older systems. The full progam was a memory hog.:major

 

I use UltimateDefrag (free version) on my XP machine and Auslogics on my Vista.

 

A good example of this in the first reply ^^

Basically, if you have 25%+ free space on the drive/partition, do a cleanup (eg. CCleaner) then defrag with your chosen defragger. If you have less than 25% free space, it's time to look for a larger hard drive.

 

Well, it's been almost 2 weeks -maybe a bit less- and I've only used Puran twice, but I like it! I can already tell that my system seems a bit 'snappier' and the boot times are definitely faster than when I had tried IObit Defrag. So far, Puran seems about equal to Auslogics, but Auslogics now comes with a toolbar (it's REALLY easy to not install the toolbar, but it IS still there), and from what I remember of the Puran install, there's no toolbar. I guess it's "so far, so good" with Puran. After I spend more time using it, if (for some reason) my performance goes down and I have reason to believe that it's related to Puran, I'll be sure to post, but for the time being, Puran gets TWO THUMBS UP!!! :dood

Just to stir the pot a bit more, I can remember working on a PC that had such bad fragmentation that Auslogics, IObit, and, the Windows defraggers could do very little to the level of fragmentation. I would a run full defrag, then run an analysis and see almost no change. Then I tried Quicksys Defrag and it took over 8 hours to complete, but when it was done, I ran an analysis with with the other defrag utils, and they ALL reported that no defrag was needed or that fragmentation was minimal!!! I just now remembered this little tidbit.... I haven't used Quicksys very often, and only maybe twice since the scenario I just described, but I must say I'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned it since it seemed to do such a great job on a previously "un-defrag-able" drive.
LOL

 

.... see below ....

 

Well, it's been another 10 days or so, and after using Puran Defrag on my somewhat regular once-a-week defrag (more like once every 8 or 9 days or a day or two after I uninstall a bunch of software and install new software; I do this A LOT :-o ), it seems to be doing a great job. I have no real lag to speak of (MUCH better than IObit), and I see no reason to stop using Puran for the foreseeable near future....

..... however, my performance using Puran seems to be equal to that of Auslogics Defrag (which I used exclusively for at least 6 months prior to installing the Puran offering), but the Puran installer doesn't have the bundled Ask toolbar installer (which is easy enough to opt out of as long as you pay attention when installing the defrag program), and the Puran uninstaller doesn't have the lame "why did you uninstall" survey, so Pruan gets extra points for that...

(I'm having some serious problems with my ISP, that's why you see the double post and the "...see below..." in post #21 above :banghead )

 

I have only notied this thread, and because I recently installed 'mydfrag' ( I think called its this ), which I thought great improvement on M.S defrag. So noticed no more updates on how this Puran defrag is for quite some time ( 3 yrs ? ) Wondering if any updates on how good this was or is still ? Or has something better sneaked in ? Thanks always find interesting /useful discussions on here.

 

Thanks dlb for letting us know!!

 

Like plodr, I may not do mine on a weekly basis.
But I do check it weekly. If it is 5-6% fragmented, I can live with it.
If 10% or higher fragmentation, I'll do it right then.
I do disconnect from the internet and turn off all defenses so that everything gets done.
I have found that some programs don't get defragged if running at that time.

 

Interesting.... I wasn't aware of this fact. I'm not doubting you hrlow, but can you back that up with some links or something? I'd like to learn a bit more about it if possible. However, it does make sense that if something is in use (like, for example, if your antivirus is in the middle of a scheduled scan) it won't get defragged, but you would think that the coding would have a way to work with scenarios like this since it's bound to happen fairly regularly....

LOL It's not really being conscientious, it's more out of necessity. I install and uninstall numerous programs regularly, sometimes I'll install a game (some of which are over 10-12gb after complete installation) and I'll play it for a few hours, realize it sucks, and then uninstall it. I'm also moving stuff around between 3 hard drives fairly regularly also. I don't defrag drives D: and E: very often (maybe twice a year), but drive C: gets defragged at least 3 times a month mainly because of the amount of constant activity it gets.

 

I have decided to try Puran ther sre so many out there but this sems OK, But would still like to hear if any one thinks its a goody

 

to dlb.
My comment was from personal observation, but after your request, I did some hunting. Check about 1/2 way down on both of these.

http://dundats.mvps.org/Windows/General/defrag.htm

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question548.htm