Best defrag software?

[Member 639844]

Hi peeps,

I dont like the normal windows program for no reason other than you cant see whats going on. I know that stupid, but I have been using smart defrag instead, which came with game booster, and for no reason other than you can see what its doing in the UI, this got me wandering what is the best tool for the job out there. Obviously I am thinking of free software, no point paying for something that comes with windows and is offered all over the place for free anyway.

Cheers

 

[Badger0-0]

I use this mate.

It has the ability to move system files to the start of the drive.

I'm not convinced it's much better than the windows version (which always worked ok in fairness), but hey, it's not MS
And you can do more with it

 

[har42]

JkDefrag - its now called MyDefrag

Excellent more features than a standard defragger and has the ability to set it as a screen saver so that every time your machines goes to screensaver it kicks off and does it thing.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

MyDefrag v4.3.1

 

[Badger0-0]

JkDefrag - its now called MyDefrag

Excellent more features than a standard defragger and has the ability to set it as a screen saver so that every time your machines goes to screensaver it kicks off and does it thing.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

MyDefrag v4.3.1

Why on earth would you want to do that?
Mine would be going off several times a day on a busy day.

Surely all those read/writes are going to thrash your HDD to death in short(er) time

With the size of drives these days, I'm not convinced defragging is that big a deal anyway, tbh.

 

[simplicity96]

You shouldn't defrag . This is a age old discussion in the tech world. Ive worked in computers for years and would never recommend a defrag, if a computer needed its information sequential it would write it that way Ive seen defrag do more harm than good time after time. I also never defrag any of my systems and have no issues at all. Anyone in my line of work would also agree with me.. Hopefully.

Cheers

 

[Badger0-0]

You shouldn't defrag . This is a age old discussion in the tech world. Ive worked in computers for years and would never recommend a defrag, if a computer needed its information sequential it would write it that way Ive seen defrag do more harm than good time after time. I also never defrag any of my systems and have no issues at all. Anyone in my line of work would also agree with me.. Hopefully.

Cheers

An age old way of thinking too, imo
I know defragging can ruin a drive, but I think that's well over-stated.
I've probably defragged my (and others that I have the misfortune to get called on to have a look at) comps hundreds of times over 15 years at least and could never state that the 2 drives I've known fail were down to de-fragging.

if a computer needed its information sequential it would write it that way

Surely that's misleading?

Indeed, it doesn't need it sequentially, but it's faster to read it that way, yes?
Albeit by milliseconds (which all count if you're after ultimate performance).

That said, as I've already said, with today's drives, I don't think it's a big deal anyway.
I defrag manually probably once every couple of months.
The prog I linked too invariably says there isn't a problem, but I do it anyway.
Does it make any noticeable difference?
Not in the slightest, but at least I have the satisfaction knowing that it's at it's peak.

All in all, much like my thinking re posh speaker cables (most likely a waste of time)

 

[simplicity96]

A computer writes the information in a way that best matches the performance you need for the tasks you do. That's why it writes what it needs where it needs, that is the way a operating system is designed to work.

And no my way is not a 'old' way of thinking its the correct way for how operating systems were designed. You are going on tit bits and hearsay. Im going of genuine data and intricate knowledge of how the operating filing system works. But hey what do I know....

Either way you can take my advice or any other you choose.

 

[Member 639844]

A computer writes the information in a way that best matches the performance you need for the tasks you do. That's why it writes what it needs where it needs, that is the way a operating system is designed to work.

And no my way is not a 'old' way of thinking its the correct way for how operating systems were designed. You are going on tit bits and hearsay. Im going of genuine data and intricate knowledge of how the operating filing system works. But hey what do I know....

Either way you can take my advice or any other you choose.

That makes it a but difficult to explain why MS ship a defrag feature with every copy of Windows

FWIW, I probably only do it twice a year or so, and only really do it out of habit in much the same as Badger does, just to know the system is being maintained so to speak.

 

[Badger0-0]

A computer writes the information in a way that best matches the performance you need for the tasks you do. That's why it writes what it needs where it needs, that is the way a operating system is designed to work.

And no my way is not a 'old' way of thinking its the correct way for how operating systems were designed. You are going on tit bits and hearsay. Im going of genuine data and intricate knowledge of how the operating filing system works. But hey what do I know....

Either way you can take my advice or any other you choose.

You need to expand on that.

In all honesty, I don't know.
What I do know is that files get written all over the place in whatever space is found first.
Else why do you see empty clusters with files behind them
Surely these same files take longer to access, simply because the read head takes longer to access it?
And why doesn't the OS automatically move files into empty space created by deleting files?

How is that best matching my performance needs, (which should always default to fastest, imo)?

And indeed, why is defrag offered in the first place if it's such a bad thing?

How many drives failing can you put down to defragging?

All genuine questions

 

[chukwe]

Is it recommended to defragment SSD?

 

[Badger0-0]

Is it recommended to defragment SSD?

No.

 

[Member 639844]

I would echo Badgers questions. It looks to me like your OS simply writes into the free space at the end of the drive all the time regardless, and when you delete files etc empty space builds up all over the place. I only have about 50 Gb a drive (x2) and I have less than 10Gb available on each, so I regularly have to shift things about. It seems to make sense to me that a drive should be defragged to keep things running smoothly, but I could be wrong.

On the SSD, I have seen programs that claim to be able to do it, but they are instant access drives anyway and everything I have seen on the subject says to leave SSDs alone.

 

[maf1970]

just because SSDs are listed as hard drives dont be fooled. The tech is way different from standard hard drives that we know. The def of SSD should tell you that.(Solid State Drive) as in no moving parts. Another way of looking at it is an SSD is a digital hard drive whereas a normal hard drive is mechanical.

@simplicity96 - If defragging is not req then explain why MS ships a basic Defragmentation program with their OS and why it is preset to run after installation of the OS?

 

[simplicity96]

Im not going into a full topical debate with you all. Just because I dont conform and agree with the masses doesn't make me wrong. Its views led by a company everyone seems to trust so dearly that myself and colleagues are up against all the time that makes this tiresome. Your OS is designed by a team and put together in pieces, those who design the read/write methods dont agree with the defrag being added.

The defrag doesn't damage hdds it corrupts data. The percentage isn't huge but not doing a defrag takes away this extra risk.

And no they aren't set to defrag from install if using a oem or retail version of windows, maybe company's do this but again who really knows why because I bet they dont if you asked them.

My advice is sound advice and from a well informed point of view. Build a few os's and see what you guys think...? I didn't post to cause arguments I simply answered a question and because its not what you are all wanting to hear your questioning the integrity of my statement and knowledge to back it up.

As I say take my advice or any other you choose. That is the point of a open forum. Good luck..

 

[Badger0-0]

Hang on, you quite simply can't make statements like that without backing them up.
I've conceded that I might be wrong, but you're giving me no reason to think I am

The percentage isn't huge but not doing a defrag takes away this extra risk.

So what's the percentage?
My experience obviously isn't as vast as yours, but I've never known a drive to be corrupted because of a defrag.
It's important you answer this, as I want to weigh up the risk of this problem compared to the slow down that you seem to think doesn't happen on a fragmented drive.

Build a few os's and see what you guys think...?

So which OS's have you built?

that makes this tiresome

How so?
You've stated what you say are facts and not even backed them up

Consensus says you should defrag, you say you shouldn't.
Why should we believe you?

That said, maybe others will take your side tomorrow, we'll see

 

[Trollslayer]

if a computer needed its information sequential it would write it that way

Sorry, filesystems don't work that way in practice.
To take a simple example, If you had 1MB of file space and wrote ten 100KB files in tuern you would fill the system.
Delete file 3 and 5 then how would you write a 150KB file? Fragment it across the spaces relased by deleting files 3 and 5.
Systems such as NTFS perform a degree of automatic defragmentation but only a certain amount of time can be spared for this so there are compromises, otherwise creatign a file could take a long time simply to create sufficient contiguous space.
BTW I have worked in embedded systems for over thirty years including developing related applications software.

 

[Badger0-0]

To take a simple example, If you had 1MB of file space and wrote ten 100KB files in tuern you would fill the system.
Delete file 3 and 5 then how would you write a 150KB file? Fragment it across the spaces relased by deleting files 3 and 5.

But surely that only applies to a full drive?
What would the OS do with loads of free space? is the more relevant question.

Are you saying it'll dump some of the file in the first free space it finds and the rest at the beginning of what's left? (that's what I think happens, fwiw).
Hence the HDD has to move again to read the second section?

 

[Member 639844]

But surely that only applies to a full drive?
What would the OS do with loads of free space? is the more relevant question.

Are you saying it'll dump some of the file in the first free space it finds and the rest at the beginning of what's left? (that's what I think happens, fwiw).
Hence the HDD has to move again to read the second section?

I thought they just kept writing into the full free space at the end, and deleted data simply left gaps. Once the saving got to the end, it then starts using the gaps. By defragging, I assumed you basically kept all the free space in one place at the end of the drive, and this keeps everything neat and tidy etc.

 

[Trollslayer]

But surely that only applies to a full drive?
What would the OS do with loads of free space? is the more relevant question.

Are you saying it'll dump some of the file in the first free space it finds and the rest at the beginning of what's left? (that's what I think happens, fwiw).
Hence the HDD has to move again to read the second section?

Precisely, this is why excessive fragmentation reduces performance.

 

[Badger0-0]

I thought they just kept writing into the full free space at the end, and deleted data simply left gaps. Once the saving got to the end, it then starts using the gaps. By defragging, I assumed you basically kept all the free space in one place at the end of the drive, and this keeps everything neat and tidy etc.

No.
And Trollslayer has just confirmed what I thought.

I keep emphasising that I don't think it's a big deal, but it'll be interesting to see what simplicity says in response.

From what I know, most filesytems are inherently inefficient anyway, because of the minimum size.
But that's a different subject.

 

[Trollslayer]

It's not so much of a deal now because modern file system drivers do small defragmenting as they go, old file systems such as FAT32 didn't do any which is why defragmenting used to be a necessary chore.

 

[maf1970]

Im not going into a full topical debate with you all. Just because I dont conform and agree with the masses doesn't make me wrong. Its views led by a company everyone seems to trust so dearly that myself and colleagues are up against all the time that makes this tiresome. Your OS is designed by a team and put together in pieces, those who design the read/write methods dont agree with the defrag being added.

The defrag doesn't damage hdds it corrupts data. The percentage isn't huge but not doing a defrag takes away this extra risk.

And no they aren't set to defrag from install if using a oem or retail version of windows, maybe company's do this but again who really knows why because I bet they dont if you asked them.

My advice is sound advice and from a well informed point of view. Build a few os's and see what you guys think...? I didn't post to cause arguments I simply answered a question and because its not what you are all wanting to hear your questioning the integrity of my statement and knowledge to back it up.

As I say take my advice or any other you choose. That is the point of a open forum. Good luck..

Sorry but I agree with the others on this. It was your comments on defragging that brought about this part of the thread. Yet when pressed by others you are unwilling to substantiate your comments. So I would be interested in examples of data corruption due to defragging a drive and reasons as to why you and your colleagues are right and we(and everyone else it seems) is wrong. Including your background experience wouldn't go a miss here.

By the way I have over 20 years IT support and comms experience which has included Microsoft(from MS-Dos & the original Windows), Sun Microsystems Solaris,Linux and even the Apple Mac.Hardware experience includes HP,Dell and IBM to name a few.

 

[atacam]

So in short are guys saying we should or shouldn't defrag? It looks like to me its a personal choice that for the time it takes to do, doesn't give you much in return, yes?

I am, at the moment defraggin my main drive in Safe Mode. 500GB with only 163GB info on there, as I have just moved 300GB off of it, I am still running XP and using the MS defrag tool. So far it has taken 3 days to get to just 47% and I am getting a bit tired of waiting for it to finish.

So should I stop it doing it and just get on with using the machine?

What general maintenance would you recommend doing on the PC then, if not a defrag?

 

[maf1970]

Defragging is necessary on the older OS. I have found that so far my Windows 7 install on my laptop has not needed defagged.

The defrag tool with XP is the most basic of basic.(just enough there to do the job nothing more). I personally have found a third party is far better. e.g. Diskeeper, O&O defrag, PerfectDisk.

Housekeeping - Regular removal of temp files and the like. When uninstalling software use the makers uninstall program when available. Make sure directories are deleted.
Have tools for consolidating free space and erasing files securely. Keep an eye on what runs at startup. A lot of software install update monitoring software to run at startup. I personally find most of these unnecessary as you check for updates from with in the software itself.(Adobe Acrobat Reader is an example of this)

 

[Sodoshi]

From a lot of experience, I would recommend ccleaner to tidy up your machine, and PerfectDisk for defragging.

Defragging makes a huge performance increase over time, as it reduces the number of disk-head thrashing needed on larger files. However, if you replace your OS relatively often, or you interact with mostly small-ish files (as opposed to tv/movies/etc) then defragging won't help much.