Printable View
I've used Diskeeper for several years and on different OS, such as Win98 and WinMe. Using Diskeeper on those systems, it took Diskeeper 5-10 minutes to defrag my whole system. But using it on WinXP Pro, it takes it over 2 hours. Is that correct for it to run so slow on XP? I'm using version 7 of Diskeeper, and my HDD is a 30gig. Thanks.
------------------
https://discussions.virtualdr.com/im.../2002/03/1.gif
[This message has been edited by Fuelm@n (edited 01-31-2002).]
Hi
I'm using DK7 as well on XP Pro and have not had any issues with it.I only have the default options set,what options have you changed since installing WinXP and DK7 if any.Not sure exactly on the length of time it takes I think it's around 30mins or so.
Smiffy
------------------
"If you are going through hell, keep going."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
I also have all the default settings, I'll maybe try uninstalling and reinstalling later, hoping it'll help. Thanks
------------------
https://discussions.virtualdr.com/im.../2002/03/1.gif
I used DK7 on an 80gb HD, and it took an amazing 9 HOURS!!!!
And I got it because the XP's built-in defragger took 8 hours.
I have no idea why that is, because otherwise XP runs just fine.
Is your drive partitioned? If you have only one partition I could see it taking that long. Did you use "set it and forget it" Set it to run every night when you are not using the machine. I partitioned my drive into 4Gb NTFS volums each. I have had no problems with Diskeeper
Good Luck
Only a single partition. Ran it again last night. you have no choice BUT to "forget it", because it takes so long. Win98 used to take 3 hours with a 30 GB HD. Obviously, the bigger the drive/partition, the longer it takes, but this is ridiculous.
This time, after 10.5 hours and the meter hung on 99% for 45 minutes (with the disk light full on), I put it out of its misery.
Hard to understand this one. I have posted other threads re: defraggers but the fastest by far was always DK7. I have two HD one of 40g the other 20. With DK7 took about 10 mins to defrag. Fastest i have ever seen. Not saying its the best defrag but certainly the fastest. The problems i have read here on this thread i find hard to understand. DK7 flies normally on my puter. Just goes to show that no two puters are alike. Perfectdisk is another excellent defragger. But for now i rely on xp, and that takes about 20 mins for the larger HD.
------------------
"To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer."
I forgot to add that i defrag with all other apps. still running. On my Pc that does not seem to cause a problem.? odd again.
------------------
"To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer."
I've used PerfectDisk on XP and it took it around 45 minutes to defrag my system, but I didn't like the way it scattered all my files. It placed some at the beginning, middle, and end of the HDD. I prefer DK, but hate the 2+ hours, it takes.
9-10 hours is way too long IMHO, for DK to defrag a system. But oh' well.........at least I know I'm not alone.
------------------
https://discussions.virtualdr.com/im.../2002/02/1.gif
[This message has been edited by Fuelm@n (edited 02-02-2002).]
Quote:
Originally posted by Boccaman:
I forgot to add that i defrag with all other apps. still running. On my Pc that does not seem to cause a problem.? odd again.
That's what makes my situation even stranger. I shut EVERYTHING down--AV, DSL, Zone Alarm, everything. And still, mucho hours.
Fuelm@n,
"I've used PerfectDisk on XP and it took it around 45 minutes to defrag my system, but I didn't like the way it scattered all my files. It placed some at the beginning, middle, and end of the HDD."
If you didn't like PerfectDisk's file placement strategy, why didn't you change it? PerfectDisk provides the ability for you to change how it places files - even lets you "shove everything to the top without any strategy" like less advanced defragmenters :-)
Seriously, PerfectDisk's default file placement strategy is designed to do several things (do you place chess with or without a strategy?):
1. Reduce the rate of file and free space re-fragmentation
2. Speed up future defrag passes.
PerfectDisk doesn't place files at one end of the disk drive or the other. That's because PerfectDisk - just like all other defragmenters - works at the LOGICAL cluster level - the same level that the file system sees. Each and every partition starts with LOGICAL cluster 0 and goes for nnn clusters (nnn is based on the size of the partition). A PHYSICAL hard drive is comprised of multiple platters. For examples sake, let's pretend that one has 5 platters. Each and every platter has an "outside" and "inside" edge. Now, we've partitioned that PHYSICAL hard drive into 4 LOGICAL partitions (C:, D:, E:, F https://discussions.virtualdr.com/. Each and every partitions starts at logical cluster number 0. On which platter of the PHYSICAL hard drive does the E: partition start? No one knows. Is it possible that the start of a LOGICAL partition could be at the outside edge of one of the platters and "wrap" to the inside edge of another platter - yes. As I mentioned earlier, ALL defragmenters work at the LOGICAL cluster level - making sure that files are LOGICALLY contiguous - that's where the performance increase comes in - only 1 LOGICAL request has to be made to access a file. How that 1 LOGICAL request gets translated into PHYSICAL requests is up to the hard drive controller - which determines on which platter(s) the data resides. Even if a file is LOGICALLY in 1 piece doesn't mean that it is PHYSICALLY contiguous on the hard drive.
Whew... With that being said, PerfectDisk's file placement strategy is based on a simple concept - placing files so that they re-fragment slower (keeps performance faster for a longer period of time and consolidating free space (new files get created contiguously - fast performance from the start). By grouping rarely modified files together and "out of the way" at the top and bottom of the LOGICAL partition, PerfectDisk won't have to work on those files again the next time it runs. PerfectDisk will likely have to only work on the frequently modified files (a small subset of the total files on the partition) - which are kept next to the free space. End result is that future defrag passes run more quickly - consuming less system resources. You also don't have to defragment as often.
Defragmenters that do NOT have a strategy end up leaving the partition more prone to re-fragmentation - slows performance down quicker - which means you have to defragment more often. They also have to do a lot more "work" when they run - consumes more system resources.
- Greg/Raxco Software
Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a commercial defrag utility and a competitor to Diskeeper, as a systems engineer in the support department.
As I was reading your reply to my post, I was thinking, "WOW!!!! This guy knows what he's talking about, he must work for Raxco!" Sure enough, when I got to the bottom of the reply...
I still have PerfectDisk, I'll just reinstall it and try it out again. I'll check into your suggestions as well. Thanks for the reply. ô¿ô
------------------
https://discussions.virtualdr.com/im.../2002/02/1.gif
[This message has been edited by Fuelm@n (edited 02-13-2002).]
Hehehe... I don't work for Raxco or any other defrag software company, but I also know most of what he told. :-) That was a happy coincidence.
Anyway, I think that the defrag times yuou all gauys are having are OK, both longer or shorter times. It varies too much due to a large number of factor, like the number and size of files, what kinmf of operations the computer is used for (like, I *guess* that machines running database servers have high fragmentation levels!).
Also, machines with large amounts of free space tend to defrag A LOT faster, depending on the defragger you're using.
I also would like to say that Perfect Disk is really one of the beste around. The disk takes a LOT of time and activity to become fragmented again, after you use it. It also defrags your HD in one pass, while Disk keeper may take even three or more passes to do the job. It's worth the try.
Norton Speeddisk does some good work too. The disk refragments faster, but it's fast even in heavilly fragmented disks, and gives you a lot of control over the process, and have a good file-placement strategy.
I don't like diskkeeper just because I don't know what its doing during the process of defragging, 'cause it gives too small feedback to the user.
Fernando.
I remember Greg talking about PerfectDisk ver 2 awhile back. At the time I was using DiskKeeper 6 and I was very disappointed with its mutliple passes and taking a long time to defrag. It would take 1-1/2 hours just to do a boot-defrag with a 16G drive. So, I gave PerfectDisk a try and I've been happy with its performance ever since. Since that time, which is probably been close to two years, I have been using their software on my Win2K machine and it has never let me down and it was everything that Greg had said. It's one pass, doesn't take long, defrags registry, metadata files, etc. at boot-time and is quick. What would take Diskeeper 1-1/2 hours to do at boot, takes PerfectDisk about 40 seconds. And that's with two hard drives now; (one 16G and the other 60G). Today, I'm still using PerfectDisk (version 4 now) and I have been very happy with its performance.Quote:
Originally posted by gshayes:
Fuelm@n,
"I've used PerfectDisk on XP and it took it around 45 minutes to defrag my system, but I didn't like the way it scattered all my files. It placed some at the beginning, middle, and end of the HDD."
If you didn't like PerfectDisk's file placement strategy, why didn't you change it? PerfectDisk provides the ability for you to change how it places files - even lets you "shove everything to the top without any strategy" like less advanced defragmenters :-)
Seriously, PerfectDisk's default file placement strategy is designed to do several things (do you place chess with or without a strategy?):
1. Reduce the rate of file and free space re-fragmentation
2. Speed up future defrag passes.
PerfectDisk doesn't place files at one end of the disk drive or the other. That's because PerfectDisk - just like all other defragmenters - works at the LOGICAL cluster level - the same level that the file system sees. Each and every partition starts with LOGICAL cluster 0 and goes for nnn clusters (nnn is based on the size of the partition). A PHYSICAL hard drive is comprised of multiple platters. For examples sake, let's pretend that one has 5 platters. Each and every platter has an "outside" and "inside" edge. Now, we've partitioned that PHYSICAL hard drive into 4 LOGICAL partitions (C:, D:, E:, F https://discussions.virtualdr.com/. Each and every partitions starts at logical cluster number 0. On which platter of the PHYSICAL hard drive does the E: partition start? No one knows. Is it possible that the start of a LOGICAL partition could be at the outside edge of one of the platters and "wrap" to the inside edge of another platter - yes. As I mentioned earlier, ALL defragmenters work at the LOGICAL cluster level - making sure that files are LOGICALLY contiguous - that's where the performance increase comes in - only 1 LOGICAL request has to be made to access a file. How that 1 LOGICAL request gets translated into PHYSICAL requests is up to the hard drive controller - which determines on which platter(s) the data resides. Even if a file is LOGICALLY in 1 piece doesn't mean that it is PHYSICALLY contiguous on the hard drive.
Whew... With that being said, PerfectDisk's file placement strategy is based on a simple concept - placing files so that they re-fragment slower (keeps performance faster for a longer period of time and consolidating free space (new files get created contiguously - fast performance from the start). By grouping rarely modified files together and "out of the way" at the top and bottom of the LOGICAL partition, PerfectDisk won't have to work on those files again the next time it runs. PerfectDisk will likely have to only work on the frequently modified files (a small subset of the total files on the partition) - which are kept next to the free space. End result is that future defrag passes run more quickly - consuming less system resources. You also don't have to defragment as often.
Defragmenters that do NOT have a strategy end up leaving the partition more prone to re-fragmentation - slows performance down quicker - which means you have to defragment more often. They also have to do a lot more "work" when they run - consumes more system resources.
- Greg/Raxco Software
Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a commercial defrag utility and a competitor to Diskeeper, as a systems engineer in the support department.