Good Defrager
- Thread starter Eddie
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Originally Posted By: JGmazda
Originally Posted By: Turk
I use the free Auslogics Defrag & optimize & love it. No issues whatsoever.
Another vote for Auslogics
I downloaded it and the entire defrag took under 90 seconds. That really surprised me.
A four month old Dell Windows 8 desktop BTW, used for web surfing.
That isn't a good thing.
Originally Posted By: JGmazda
Originally Posted By: Turk
I use the free Auslogics Defrag & optimize & love it. No issues whatsoever.
Another vote for Auslogics
I downloaded it and the entire defrag took under 90 seconds. That really surprised me.
A four month old Dell Windows 8 desktop BTW, used for web surfing.
That isn't a good thing.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Originally Posted By: JGmazda
Originally Posted By: Turk
I use the free Auslogics Defrag & optimize & love it. No issues whatsoever.
Another vote for Auslogics
I downloaded it and the entire defrag took under 90 seconds. That really surprised me.
A four month old Dell Windows 8 desktop BTW, used for web surfing.
That isn't a good thing.
depends on if you hit defrag or defrag and optimize.
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Originally Posted By: JGmazda
Originally Posted By: Turk
I use the free Auslogics Defrag & optimize & love it. No issues whatsoever.
Another vote for Auslogics
I downloaded it and the entire defrag took under 90 seconds. That really surprised me.
A four month old Dell Windows 8 desktop BTW, used for web surfing.
That isn't a good thing.
depends on if you hit defrag or defrag and optimize.
A well designed fs doesn't need defragging.
fs ?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Eddie
fs ?
File System.
fs ?
File System.
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
A well designed fs doesn't need defragging.
I've heard that for decades. First is was Novell saying that NWFS and subsequently NSS file system doesn't need defragging.
This was proven false.
Then MS comes along with NTFS in v4 and prior of NT saying it doesn't need defragging.
We all know this is nonsense.
Now we hear the same touted from others.
I'm a non-believer in claims that a file system doesn't need to be defragmented. My skepticism includes VMware's file systems and ZFS.
A well designed fs doesn't need defragging.
I've heard that for decades. First is was Novell saying that NWFS and subsequently NSS file system doesn't need defragging.
This was proven false.
Then MS comes along with NTFS in v4 and prior of NT saying it doesn't need defragging.
We all know this is nonsense.
Now we hear the same touted from others.
I'm a non-believer in claims that a file system doesn't need to be defragmented. My skepticism includes VMware's file systems and ZFS.
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
A well designed fs doesn't need defragging.
For a non mechanical storage (i.e. SSD) this is true. For a mechanical one, there's always something to lose if you do not align the files in an optimal order and location. It may not be a lot if you do not write a lot of files and split the frequently written data to a different disk from the read only stuff.
A well designed fs doesn't need defragging.
For a non mechanical storage (i.e. SSD) this is true. For a mechanical one, there's always something to lose if you do not align the files in an optimal order and location. It may not be a lot if you do not write a lot of files and split the frequently written data to a different disk from the read only stuff.
Fragmentation is one of the main ways Solid State storage is as fast as it is, parallel access to a file across multiple (usually 8) NAND chips.
On a spinning drive, fragmentation is a fact of life, and while different FS have different rates, it is not absent from any.
Another big benefit from a good defrag program is the ability to selectively place files on the platter(s), having the most frequently accessed files on the outside and moving to the least accessed (and bulk storage) on the inside, you will see 50-300 percent better disk performance. For example, one of my WD Blue 1TB (WD10EZEX, single 1TB platter, one of thefastest drives aavailable) pushes 208MB/s on tthe outside going down to 133MB/s on the inside.
Never ever defrag an SSD!
On a spinning drive, fragmentation is a fact of life, and while different FS have different rates, it is not absent from any.
Another big benefit from a good defrag program is the ability to selectively place files on the platter(s), having the most frequently accessed files on the outside and moving to the least accessed (and bulk storage) on the inside, you will see 50-300 percent better disk performance. For example, one of my WD Blue 1TB (WD10EZEX, single 1TB platter, one of thefastest drives aavailable) pushes 208MB/s on tthe outside going down to 133MB/s on the inside.
Never ever defrag an SSD!
I am having very funny experience with the auslogics defragger. After it completes the defragging, if I run it again immediately (and no other application is active), it still finds more stuff to do. Interestingly, the file it tells me is fragmented just happens to have a name which sounds like the log file of the defragger itself! Unfortunately, there is no setting within the application to disable log file creation. May be there is some registry entry which I can edit. But it is ironic that running the defragger causes the fragmentation to happen. This is an ancient laptop running WinXP.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I like Raxco's PerfectDisk personally.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
A well designed fs doesn't need defragging.
For a non mechanical storage (i.e. SSD) this is true. For a mechanical one, there's always something to lose if you do not align the files in an optimal order and location. It may not be a lot if you do not write a lot of files and split the frequently written data to a different disk from the read only stuff.
Today's mechanical disk drives manage what's happening under the covers. So the geometry presented to the OS may not represent reality. So all the tricks people mention such as putting files or file systems on specific regions of a disk probably don't apply today.
But a well designed file system can manage fragmentation such that it really isn't a big deal. But if the geometry is virtual, then how much doe it matter?
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
A well designed fs doesn't need defragging.
For a non mechanical storage (i.e. SSD) this is true. For a mechanical one, there's always something to lose if you do not align the files in an optimal order and location. It may not be a lot if you do not write a lot of files and split the frequently written data to a different disk from the read only stuff.
Today's mechanical disk drives manage what's happening under the covers. So the geometry presented to the OS may not represent reality. So all the tricks people mention such as putting files or file systems on specific regions of a disk probably don't apply today.
But a well designed file system can manage fragmentation such that it really isn't a big deal. But if the geometry is virtual, then how much doe it matter?
Many years ago, I joined a company and took a look at the couple-of-year old PC.
Knowing most of the staffs doesn't know much about PC, except used it, I was surprised the hardisk was relatively "well defragged"
I stopped defragging since that day.
If we looked at the defrag and the way files are written into hardisk and deleted, it is basically "self-defragging" given enough time and plenty of hardisk space.
Unless you want your hardisk pristine perfectly defragged all the time, it's better not to touch it and maybe not shortened the life of the hardisk.
I would just make sure the hardisk has plenty of space and leave it to "self-defragging"
Knowing most of the staffs doesn't know much about PC, except used it, I was surprised the hardisk was relatively "well defragged"
I stopped defragging since that day.
If we looked at the defrag and the way files are written into hardisk and deleted, it is basically "self-defragging" given enough time and plenty of hardisk space.
Unless you want your hardisk pristine perfectly defragged all the time, it's better not to touch it and maybe not shortened the life of the hardisk.
I would just make sure the hardisk has plenty of space and leave it to "self-defragging"
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted By: kb27
Many years ago, I joined a company and took a look at the couple-of-year old PC.
Knowing most of the staffs doesn't know much about PC, except used it, I was surprised the hardisk was relatively "well defragged"
I stopped defragging since that day.
If we looked at the defrag and the way files are written into hardisk and deleted, it is basically "self-defragging" given enough time and plenty of hardisk space.
Unless you want your hardisk pristine perfectly defragged all the time, it's better not to touch it and maybe not shortened the life of the hardisk.
I would just make sure the hardisk has plenty of space and leave it to "self-defragging"
You best defrag, if you are getting close to maximum space on your hard drive.
Many years ago, I joined a company and took a look at the couple-of-year old PC.
Knowing most of the staffs doesn't know much about PC, except used it, I was surprised the hardisk was relatively "well defragged"
I stopped defragging since that day.
If we looked at the defrag and the way files are written into hardisk and deleted, it is basically "self-defragging" given enough time and plenty of hardisk space.
Unless you want your hardisk pristine perfectly defragged all the time, it's better not to touch it and maybe not shortened the life of the hardisk.
I would just make sure the hardisk has plenty of space and leave it to "self-defragging"
You best defrag, if you are getting close to maximum space on your hard drive.
use doesnt really shorten hdd life much afaik
Just anecdotal:
I have a 2tb hdd that has had 29TB written to it.. as well as over 40TB read from it.
Still going strong in year 4.
my barely used multimedia storage hdd just went belly up.. with less than 1/10 that use.
I run a auslogics weekly or so.
once every few months I'll do the full optimize where it will also move files around when it makes sense.
Just anecdotal:
I have a 2tb hdd that has had 29TB written to it.. as well as over 40TB read from it.
Still going strong in year 4.
my barely used multimedia storage hdd just went belly up.. with less than 1/10 that use.
I run a auslogics weekly or so.
once every few months I'll do the full optimize where it will also move files around when it makes sense.
If you want to maximize the life of yourHDD, turn off tthe power saving feature that spins down the drives after x amount of time. The most stressful thing for a modern drive is the spinup period.
Since no one has mentioned it yet, the best performing utility is definitely MyDefrag. I've spent a lot of time in the past on researching file-system & operation-system performance and I've never found a better 'drive cleanup' utility. I should note that fragmentation is only part of the problem, and what MyDefrag does with optimization (some uses have tweaked their own scripts) is fantastic.
http://mydefrag.com/
If anyone knows of any comparison/benchmark tests that show a competing product come close to this performance (at any price) I'd love to know about it. I've been using it for many, many years and I know of none better.
http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-disk-de-fragmenter.htm
I'll add that the current version of Windows 7 (6.1.7601) is the first Windows operating system to have a half-decent defrag operation built-in. I believe the latest version (6.3) has made some improvements over that as well.
I would not recommend the default defragger for Vista (6.0) and older versions of Windows.
http://mydefrag.com/
If anyone knows of any comparison/benchmark tests that show a competing product come close to this performance (at any price) I'd love to know about it. I've been using it for many, many years and I know of none better.
http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-disk-de-fragmenter.htm
I'll add that the current version of Windows 7 (6.1.7601) is the first Windows operating system to have a half-decent defrag operation built-in. I believe the latest version (6.3) has made some improvements over that as well.
I would not recommend the default defragger for Vista (6.0) and older versions of Windows.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: martinq
Since no one has mentioned it yet, the best performing utility is definitely MyDefrag. I've spent a lot of time in the past on researching file-system & operation-system performance and I've never found a better 'drive cleanup' utility. I should note that fragmentation is only part of the problem, and what MyDefrag does with optimization (some uses have tweaked their own scripts) is fantastic.
http://mydefrag.com/
If anyone knows of any comparison/benchmark tests that show a competing product come close to this performance (at any price) I'd love to know about it. I've been using it for many, many years and I know of none better.
http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-disk-de-fragmenter.htm
I'll add that the current version of Windows 7 (6.1.7601) is the first Windows operating system to have a half-decent defrag operation built-in. I believe the latest version (6.3) has made some improvements over that as well.
I would not recommend the default defragger for Vista (6.0) and older versions of Windows.
Never heard of this utility but trying it out now, thanks for mentioning it!
Since no one has mentioned it yet, the best performing utility is definitely MyDefrag. I've spent a lot of time in the past on researching file-system & operation-system performance and I've never found a better 'drive cleanup' utility. I should note that fragmentation is only part of the problem, and what MyDefrag does with optimization (some uses have tweaked their own scripts) is fantastic.
http://mydefrag.com/
If anyone knows of any comparison/benchmark tests that show a competing product come close to this performance (at any price) I'd love to know about it. I've been using it for many, many years and I know of none better.
http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-disk-de-fragmenter.htm
I'll add that the current version of Windows 7 (6.1.7601) is the first Windows operating system to have a half-decent defrag operation built-in. I believe the latest version (6.3) has made some improvements over that as well.
I would not recommend the default defragger for Vista (6.0) and older versions of Windows.
Never heard of this utility but trying it out now, thanks for mentioning it!
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
A well designed fs doesn't need defragging.
For a non mechanical storage (i.e. SSD) this is true. For a mechanical one, there's always something to lose if you do not align the files in an optimal order and location. It may not be a lot if you do not write a lot of files and split the frequently written data to a different disk from the read only stuff.
Today's mechanical disk drives manage what's happening under the covers. So the geometry presented to the OS may not represent reality. So all the tricks people mention such as putting files or file systems on specific regions of a disk probably don't apply today.
But a well designed file system can manage fragmentation such that it really isn't a big deal. But if the geometry is virtual, then how much doe it matter?
It still has the earlier, more commonly used region at the outer tracks of the platters and the inner tracks of the platters at the end. Most importantly, they are still sequential in nature, so it would still be the best to have all the files close to each other to reduce seeks. This is not a FS issue but rather an OS issue, and it affects mechanical but not much to SSD (unless it is intentionally crossing NAND block boundaries all the time).
Also there's a difference between fragmentation and optimization of the file location.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
A well designed fs doesn't need defragging.
For a non mechanical storage (i.e. SSD) this is true. For a mechanical one, there's always something to lose if you do not align the files in an optimal order and location. It may not be a lot if you do not write a lot of files and split the frequently written data to a different disk from the read only stuff.
Today's mechanical disk drives manage what's happening under the covers. So the geometry presented to the OS may not represent reality. So all the tricks people mention such as putting files or file systems on specific regions of a disk probably don't apply today.
But a well designed file system can manage fragmentation such that it really isn't a big deal. But if the geometry is virtual, then how much doe it matter?
It still has the earlier, more commonly used region at the outer tracks of the platters and the inner tracks of the platters at the end. Most importantly, they are still sequential in nature, so it would still be the best to have all the files close to each other to reduce seeks. This is not a FS issue but rather an OS issue, and it affects mechanical but not much to SSD (unless it is intentionally crossing NAND block boundaries all the time).
Also there's a difference between fragmentation and optimization of the file location.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: nleksan
If you want to maximize the life of yourHDD, turn off tthe power saving feature that spins down the drives after x amount of time. The most stressful thing for a modern drive is the spinup period.
Yes, every time you spin up the disk the heads has to land on the flying platters, and that causes some impacts (for a short period of time) at landing.
If you want to maximize the life of yourHDD, turn off tthe power saving feature that spins down the drives after x amount of time. The most stressful thing for a modern drive is the spinup period.
Yes, every time you spin up the disk the heads has to land on the flying platters, and that causes some impacts (for a short period of time) at landing.
- Status
Similar threads
