What is the best defrag utility available, OTHER than the customary defrag under tools in XP?
BTW, once I used a third party defrag, and it crashed my HD, so in your opinion guys, also, what is the safest as well?
Thanks,
Liz
Printable View
What is the best defrag utility available, OTHER than the customary defrag under tools in XP?
BTW, once I used a third party defrag, and it crashed my HD, so in your opinion guys, also, what is the safest as well?
Thanks,
Liz
Diskkeeper light (which is the free version) is what most people use. Doubt you'll be able to see, feel or taste any difference. I know I couldn't.
Hi, :)
PerfectDisk is my favourite but it is not free.
http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdisk2k/
I`ve used it for years with no problems
Elaine
I agree with dunedin!
I bought it also and well worth the expense in my book.
What dunedin and Train said. Been using Perfect Disk with excellent results for a couple years now on XP-Pro. Very much like the feature of being able to defrag system files and the page file in an offline mode... :)
Both the Diskeeper and Raxco PerfectDisk are generally liked.
Between diskeeper that's shipped with xp, and the pro version, the only major difference is the "Set it and forget it" feature. For paranoid defragmentors like me who do it quite frequently anyway (or set a Windows task for it) it's not an earth shattering difference. So I would stick with basic diskeeper and use it often.
Users of perfect disk - what's better about it? I notice on their website they mention a "patented optimization strategy" but what's the diff?
May I suggest checking out the PerfectDisk Info Zone section.
After using 8 different defraggers, Perfect disk was the one that works the way I want a defrag program to work.
By the way, in that panel is where you can get a free evaluation copy of prefectdisk. Take it for a spin and check it out.
This post from gshayes who works for Raxco is quite old now,but very informative when it comes to defragging the hard drive:
WARNING - LONG POST
"As to the other posts, I'd like someone to explain to me how the various other defragemnters are "better" - how does anyone know? Someone on this forum a while ago (was it you gshayes?) explained how difficult it was to write a defragger - and fascinating reading it was too - I wish I could find that post now."
It may have been me - it may not have been. I lose track of what I write
"By what test do we measure defraggers? "
It depends on which defrag vendor you are talking to All of them (including Raxco, the company that I work for) claim that they are "the fastest and most complete defragmenter in the whole wide world" How to you compare marketing with reality?
From Raxco's perspective, there are two types of disks - fragmented and non-fragmented. This is an important thing to keep in mind.
Most people's view on "which defragmenter is best" is based on limited knowledge of defragmenting - which is the fault of defrag vendors for not properly educating people abou the defrag process (which is one of the reasons why I am active in the online community - to educate, assist, and answer questions) or based on what features that they are willing to pay for in a defragmenter (if the built-in one performs adequately for them, then it may be considered "best" for their unique environment).
All of the defragmenters (under XP at least) start from a common point - Microsoft's defrag APIs and what these APIs support for defragmenting and what restrictions that these APIs have. For example, Microsoft's defrag APIs don't support defragmenting directories on FATx drives online, don't support defragmenting the pagefile online, or the hibernate file, or the non-$MFT metadata on NTFS drives. Other than that, all of the other files can safely be defragmented online - even files that are open for write by other users/processes. Whether a defragmenter will actually be able to move these files is a different story. Techically it is possible - does a defragmenter take advantage of this ability?
To defragment directories (FATx), the pagefile, the hibernate file and the non-$MFT metadata (NTFS) requires that a boot time defrag be performed. As soon as one of these files fragments, without the ability to perform a boot time defrag, a complete defrag pass can never be performed. However, whether this is important to you is a different story. Without the ability to perform a boot time defrag, how can a defrag product claim to be "fastest and most complete"? Separate the marketing from reality.
Defrag products that do NOT offer the ability to perform a boot time defrag pass are Vopt, SpeedDisk, Ontrack, the built-in defragmenter and Defrag Manager/Commander. Defragmenters that DO offer the ability to perform a boot time defrag pass are PerfectDisk, O&O Defrag and Diskeeper.
Even then, the abilities of a defragmenter's boot time defrag vary. For example, Diskeeper doesn't provide the ability to defragment the hibernate file and will only defragment the pagefile if there is a contiguous piece of free space the size of the pagefile. Diskeeper requires that same for defragmenting directories on FATx drives. While Diskeeper's boot time defrag will let you defragment the $MFT, it doesn't defragment the remainder of the NTFS metadata. It says that it is, but how can you tell? Diskeeper doesn't provide statistics about the non-$MFT metadata in order for you to be able to verify.
O&O Defrag doesnt' allow you to defragment directories on FATx drives. It does allow you to defragment the $MFT, but it places the $MFT in the first piece of free space big enough to hold it - which may not be the best place for the $MFT. If a large enough piece of free space doesn't exist, then O&O can't defragment the $MFT. O&O also doesn't allow you to defragment the non-$MFT metadata - although it will occasionally display information about some of these files.
Let's get back to online defragmentation. As all of the defrag products start from the same place - Microsoft's defrag APIs - how a defrag product utilizes those APIs (the intelligence that they wrap around them) is what separates the different defrag products from one another.
There are several areas that differ between products:
Free Space Consolidation - This ranks up there with the importance of defragmenting files. If after you defrag your free space is scattered all over the place, then when you create new files, they can be created fragmented - which is the problem that you are trying to solve. How good of a job does a defragmenter do in consolidating free space? How can you tell. Diskeeper used to provide a statistic that you be used to measure this. However, several builds ago, they removed this statistic. However, you can still get a rough idea of how well they did by visually looking at the display. Several other defragmenters provide a free space fragmentation percentage statistic - but this can be difficult to read. How is this % being calculated? Raxco thinks that of more importance is knowing how big the largest piece of contiguous free space is. This is a "hard" number - easy for most people to understand. Since all defragmenters under XP use the same defrag APIs, it is technically possible for EVERY defragmenter to do a superb job of consolidating free space. However, due to differences in defrag "smarts", the reality is that most don't.
Free Space Needed to Defrag - Some defrag products strongly recommend that you have at LEAST 10-20% free space in order to defragment (and may display messages if you don't suggesting that you remove files from the drive and re-defrag). While it does take a certain amount of free space in order to defrag (after all, when you defrag you are making a copy of a file or a portion of a file), it certainly shouldn't require someone to leave a significant amount of free space available just to defragment. Since all defragmenters under XP use the same defrag APIs, it is technically possible for EVERY defragmenter to work in conditions of low free space. However, due to differences in defrag "smarts", the reality is that most defragmenters don't work well in low free space conditions.
Multi-pass vs Single-pass - Remember, Raxco thinks that there are two types of disks - fragmented and non-fragmented. If after you run a defrag pass you still have a significant number of fragmented files, you still have a fragmented disk. Since all defragmenters under XP use the same defrag APIs, technically there is no reason that a defrag can't be done in one pass. This is one of the major points of contention between defrag vendors.
Some vendors claim that multi-pass is better. However, in some cases (large amount of free space) they may complete in 1 pass. So, if multi-pass is better, why isn't it always better? Why wouldn't it always take multiple passes? Raxco takes the view that my dad always told me when I was younger - if you are going to do something - do it right the first time and you won't have to do it over again later. That is why we think that single-pass defragmentation is better - especially if it can be done in the same amount of time or less than multi-pass defragmenters take.
Again, the difference here between single pass defragmenters is the "smarts" behind the defrag technology.
Of course, as I already mentioned, I work for a defrag company and what I say shouldn't be taken as gospel. Verify the accuracy of the information provided above about different defrag products. If somebody claims something, verify it with facts/statistics. I always like to encourage people to take a look at the different defrag products, compare the statistics that each provides (what do they agree on - what do the differ on) and then base their decision on which product is "best" for which product has the features that they are looking for at a price that they are willing to pay.
- Greg/Raxco Software