Defragmenters -- A Little Comparison Test

[Ezduzit]

Defragmenters -- Yes, again.


Over the years I have taken every defragger imaginable for a spin at one time or
another & finally settled on GoldenBow's VoptXP (currently using v7.13) because it
was easy to use, lightning fast and seemed to do an excellent job. I've been using
Vopt in one incarnation or another for a couple of years now. Recently however
I have read numerous criticisms about the program. One comment I remember reading said
that Vopt will "tear up a HDD" and "good luck to those who use it". (Similar remarks can
be found in the recent thread "Defrag report questions!") Yikes! I thought it might be
time to take a look around for a new utility.


XP's native defragger was never a consideration, nor it's big brother 'DiskKeeper'.
It might have done an excellent job defragging but I disliked the GUI & thought it
installed too deeply into the OS. I'm not a 'Set and Forget' kind of guy. I didn't care
for the O&O program at all but I honestly can't remember why. I remember thinking that
PerfectDisk was 'Ok' (though speed wise, Vopt blew it out of the water) but knew that it
was a highly recommended app, so I decided to revisit Perfect Disk and installed the latest
version #6.

After running PD on my E drive yesterday, I couldn't help but notice that the # of fragmented
files failed to reach the expected number " 0 " according to the Statistics. Hmmmm, maybe I'm
missing something.

So, I decided to do a little test.

I did a cleanup of my C drive and ran the defraggers in a non-scientific, head-to-head
comparison.

Here is what I found:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To start, I had both programs run an Analysis of the drive:

--- VoptXP log ---
Analyze C: 15/11/2003 10:40:04 AM
FAT32 volume = 5.13GB
Free space = 3.09GB
Files = 19172, Folders = 1634
Fragmented files = 51
Recycle bin = 16KB
System restore = 2.04GB
Temp files = 28KB

PD Analysis:

Drive Health
Entity Status Fragmentation Factor Number Excess Fragments
File Fragmentation Good 0 55 79
Directory Fragmentation Good 3 44 139


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Then I ran PD 'Smart Placement Defragment':


PD Smart Placement Statistics:

Drive Health
Entity Status Fragmentation Factor Number Excess Fragments
File Fragmentation Good 0 69 130
Directory Fragmentation Good 3 44 139

VoptXP Analysis after 'Smart Placement Defragment':

--- VoptXP log ---
Analyze C: 15/11/2003 10:46:52 AM
FAT32 volume = 5.13GB
Free space = 3.09GB
Files = 19180, Folders = 1637
Fragmented files = 70
Recycle bin = 20KB
System restore = 2.04GB
Temp files = 32KB

Next I ran PD 'Defragment Only':

PD Analysis after 'Defragment Only':

Drive Health
Entity Status Fragmentation Factor Number Excess Fragments
File Fragmentation Good 0 69 130
Directory Fragmentation Good 3 44 139

VoptXP Analysis after 'Defragment Only':

--- VoptXP log ---
Analyze C: 15/11/2003 10:50:01 AM
FAT32 volume = 5.13GB
Free space = 3.09GB
Files = 19182, Folders = 1637
Fragmented files = 70
Recycle bin = 24KB
System restore = 2.04GB
Temp files = 32KB

Followed by:

PD Analysis 2

Drive Health
Entity Status Fragmentation Factor Number Excess Fragments
File Fragmentation Good 0 70 131
Directory Fragmentation Good 3 44 139


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Next I ran VoptXP Defrag on the drive:

--- VoptXP log ---
Defrag C: 15/11/2003 10:55:27 AM
FAT32 volume = 5.13GB
Free space = 3.09GB
Files = 19182, Folders = 1637
Fragmented files = 0
Recycle bin = 28KB
System restore = 2.04GB
Temp files = 28KB

(Now that's what I like to see -- " Fragmented files = 0 ".)

PD Analysis after all above operations:

Drive Health
Entity Status Fragmentation Factor Number Excess Fragments
File Fragmentation Good 0 3 3
Directory Fragmentation Good 3 44 139

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I fully understand that defragmenters each have their own methods, parameters and criteria for
analysing and defragmenting a volume so this may be reason enough for any noted discrepancies.
However this is what the numbers mean to me:

Running PD actually increased the number of "Excess Fragments" from 79 to 131 & it did
nothing about the "Directory Fragmentation" of 139 -- according to its own Statistics. At the
offset, VoptXP analysis detected 51 fragments. After running PD's 'Smart Placement' and
'Defragment Only', VoptXP analysis detected 70 fragments on the drive. VoptXP Defrag reduced the
number of fragmented files from 70 to 0.

Since I do not plan on running more than one defragmenter (doing so is not recommended), I have
decided to join fellow member steve83 and stick with VoptXP.

VoptXP does it all: Global defrag of my 2 HDDs/8 partitions with a couple of clicks; clean
Restart defrag; capable of locating and deleting temp files, cookies, url cache, web content,
& History; can overwrite a drive's free space, can optimize the pagefile and is (IMO) an excellent
defragmenter. Oh, and did I mention it's the fastest one on the planet?

I'd be interested in any comments.

(And no, I do NOT work for GoldenBow nor do I have any connection to the company what so ever.)

Best Regards to All,
Ezduzit

[I'm at 28356]

Since I'm a long time happy VoptXP user I agree with your decision to stick with Vopt. However, I'm not sure the comparisons you ran are valid. From what I gather, you ran these defrag programs "back to back". I think each defrag utility should be run maybe a week apart, after normal PC use during that week. However, I personally won't make a comparison. I really feel that using different defraggers can result in a mess on the HD, if not HD damage.

[robcaro]

For your information, VoptXP is currently avialable for v7.21

[Ezduzit]

Its not my intention to continue running two defraggers nor would I ever recommend doing so. (Whether
using two defrag utilities can really harm a HD, I can't say. I've heard statements to that effect but have never read any hard evidence or heard any 1st person horror stories.)

As to the validity of the tests (and my interpretation of the results) the comparison wasn't conducted
in a tech lab so they are unscientific. I can't imagine how to do a simple comparison test without running the utilities "back to back". If they were run a week apart and compared then the numbers would't be relevant because the volume conditions would be different. That is why I ran them side by side with as little overlap as possible.

I had each app run an analysis of the drive, then ran PD's defrag & then another analysis. That was followed by a Vopt defrag .... and another analysis. I recorded the statistics along the way.

In the end I was both startled by PerfectDisk's performance and reassured about VoptXP. It seems that even PerfectDisk's analysis confirmed Vopt's effectiveness and apparent superiority.

But, it was just a fun little (unscientific) test.

"For your information, VoptXP is currently avialable for v7.21"

Thank you!

[gshayes]

You say that you have a FAT32 drive. Microsoft's defrag APIs do NOT support defragmenting directories on FATx drives.

Per the recommendations in the PerfectDisk Getting Started Guide as well as intructions in the PerfectDisk online help, you should have run an boot time defrag followed by a Smart Placement or Defrag only pass.

The boot defrag serves to not only defrag but also to consolidate directories so that PerfectDisk doesn't end up splitting files around those unmovable clusters as we attempt to consolidate free space. the boot defrag also serves to defrag and consolidate the pagefile and hibernate file (also can not be defragmented online). As these clusters are also not movable online, PD may end up splitting files around these unmovable clusters as we attempt to consolidate free space.

As Vopt has no boot time defrag mechanism, it will not be able to defragment the hibernate file, pagefile or directories on FATx drives (nor non-$MFT metadata on NTFS drives).


- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File Systems

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

[Ezduzit]

Hi Greg, thanks for the reply.

"you should have run an boot time defrag followed by a Smart Placement or Defrag only pass."

I don't recall what PD recommended after the 1st analysis, but no doubt a boot defrag would have been better. However this wasn't a badly fragmented drive to begin with so I stayed in Windows. Yes the drive is Fat32 & so contains no MFT but it also contains no pagefile, hibernate file, etc., etc. Still, why do you think PD detected more fragmentation after running both Smart Placement and Defragment Only?? And why did it detect only 3 fragmented files after running VoptXP?


"As Vopt has no boot time defrag mechanism, it will not be able to defragment the hibernate file, pagefile or directories on FATx drives (nor non-$MFT metadata on NTFS drives)."

Vopt does have a boot defrag. It can optimize the pagefile (move it entirely or just to the front of a drive) but I don't know if it can 'defrag' the pagefile or the hibernate file.

From the VoptXP Help file:

"Defragments all files, excepting a few reserved system files. Adequate free space required.

Defragments all NTFS folders. Adjacent space required.

Defragments all FAT32 and FAT folders. Adjacent space required.

Defragments the MFT (Master File Table). Adequate free space required."

"Clean restart:

Shuts down and restarts the system, then runs VoptXP before other applications are started. This allows defragmenting without interference from other applications. You may combine a Clean restart with a Batch defrag."

"Paging file:

Optimizing the swap or paging file requires several system restarts. Some system settings are modified when setup begins and restored when setup is complete. If setup is interrupted, for any reason, these settings may not be restored. In this case, running VoptXP will initiate restoration of the modified system settings."

[gshayes]

Without seeing the actual PD and Vopt stats, it is hard to make an informed conclusion as to what you experienced.

As I mentioned earlier, PD will split files around unmovable clusters on the drive. With FATx, directories are unmovable online - they require a boot time defrag to "move".

Vopt does NOT have a boot time defrag ability - code that runs during the boot process to defragment files. I know that for certain.

"Optimizing the swap or paging file requires several system restarts. Some system settings are modified when setup begins and restored when setup is complete. If setup is interrupted, for any reason, these settings may not be restored. In this case, running VoptXP will initiate restoration of the modified system settings."

What Vopt does is to disable the pagefile - Windows deletes it from the drive. Vopt then performs a defrag pass. At the end, Vopt re-enables the pagefile and hopefully Windows - when it creates the new pagefile - will create it contiguously. If Vopt doesn't create a large enough piece of contiguous free space the size of the pagefile or larger, Windows will NOT be able to create a contiguous pagefile.


"Defragments all NTFS folders. Adjacent space required."

Microsoft's defrag APIs fully support this.


"Defragments all FAT32 and FAT folders. Adjacent space required."

Microsoft's defrag APIs to NOT support this. This requires a boot time defrag - code that runs during the boot process. Vopt does NOT have a boot time defrag ability.


"Defragments the MFT (Master File Table). Adequate free space required."

Microsoft's defrag APIs fully support this. However, non-$MFT metadata can only be defragmented at boot time. Vopt does NOT defragment non-$MFT metadata.


- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File Systems

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

[tcbbsb]

Greg
You're too modest...Perfect Disk is absolutely the best.
Cheers
t