# To Diskeeper or Not to Diskeeper



## jgjulio (Apr 15, 2004)

I have been following the discussion on another post regarding Diskeeper.
My question: Is Diskeeper a worthy choice to buy to replace the windows defrag utility.
Will defraging a hard drive every day significantly improve overall performance. 

Thanks


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

IMO, depends on which Windows and how the computer is used.
I use 98se and defrag once a week and feel a slight improvement, not much. If I do it once a month, the machine can be felt slowing down before the defrag.
I use this computer mainly online and searching out information, some photo restoration.

My Mother that has a win xp home laptop, plays games and is on line for the news every day. She uses it less than half as much as I do mine. Hers can go 3-4 months without a defrag and I can't tell any difference.
I've seen her's do uptimes of 1 to 2 months and still be just as responsive.

So, I suppose 'it all depends'.

Would I buy Diskeeper? No....I just don't think I or my Mom need it.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

I have it. It is a good program but I am not sure if I had to do it again I'd buy it. I bought it because I hate waiting for a defrag and I forget to do it until I use my computer and notice it is dragging.

I'd make a mental note and then forget to do it when I was done. My computer defrags every night at 2 am. It only takes a minute to defrag. I guess it is OK for forgetful people like myself.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

jgjulio said:


> I have been following the discussion on another post regarding Diskeeper.
> My question: Is Diskeeper a worthy choice to buy to replace the Windows defrag utility.
> Will defragging a hard drive every day significantly improve overall performance.
> 
> Thanks


It might sound a bit prejudiced coming from me, but it took me years before spending any cash on top of what I paid for the computer.

Finally I upped the RAM from 256Mb to 512Mb and noticed a BIG improvement, so added more. :up:

Then I found out about the maximum amount of RAM that could be fitted and decided to up it to the maximum. Not really worth it, but what the heck. 

Then I bought Norton Utilities when using Millenium Edition. Both were a waste of money.  :down:

I had already found out about drive imaging so decided to pay for that too. Excellent! :up:

Then I finally tried Diskeeper 9 Professional (NOT the Home version) used it, found I had a need to use Frag-Shield and like the automatic defragmentation, which, if I didn't have the computer standing on the desktop, I would probably never notice its working.

I find that it definitely improves performance, especially the smoothness of operation, but ... well, that is up to you.

So the extra RAM was well worth while, up to a point.
Drive imaging is definitely money well spent.
If you don't mind spending the money, I would go for Diskeeper, but ONLY after you evaluate it for yourself.

There are other defragmenters around but I would say that this is the best one. I have tried several more of them in the past.

Raxco's Perfectdisk is good too.

Diskeeper updates the existing version supplied with XP. If you uninstall DK9 you get your original defrag program back again, so it is worth a try.

If it came with the operating system I doubt if anyone would even question the idea, and as far as I know it is owned by Microsoft anyway.

Really every XP user should be getting it as an update, in my opinion. :up:

(Well, there's no harm in trying!)

I would evaluate it for yourself, and come to your OWN decision, rather than allow anyone else to dictate to you or try to influence you.


----------



## jgjulio (Apr 15, 2004)

Ok I purchased Diskeeper. I am one of those folks that never remembers to defrag his hard drive. Since it is clear that defragging is good and I never do it, then the schedule component alone seems worth it.
My question: In the scheduling options there is a "continous" setting for everyday. What does that mean. 
If I want it to defrag one time each day how would I set it up.
Thanks.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

In the Set it and Forget it group, click on "Set a Custom Schedule." In the Select a Schedule drop-down windows choose "One time".

Continuous means just that. 24/7.


----------



## jgjulio (Apr 15, 2004)

Got it.
thanks


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

No problem. Let us all know if it helps at all and you see an improvement.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Other than advertising descriptions, and since none has been provided, I've been trying to find some actual performance testing has been done regarding Diskeeper9

One site that actually had performance data:
http://www.sysopt.com/reviews/diskeeper/index2.html

"Benchmarks seem to show Diskeeper 9 offering a slightly better file system improvement compared to the XP defragmenter. The improvement comes at a cost of slower completion time. "

Mix of user opinions based on features and performance:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11889368~mode=flat

If anyone else has done similar testing or found similar pages with actual results, it would be good to know.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

"XP defragmenter performed a single pass, finishing in 5.5 hours. By comparison, Diskeeper's multi-pass method took 10 hours to complete. Was the wait worth it?"

I find that you always get that on the FIRST run, but ONLY on the first run. Thereafter, for subsequent runs, the time is faster.

When I tried Perfectdisk I found it to be - painfully - slow by comparison.

I would hazard a guess that it may well have to do with the particular hardware that people are using, especially in the second link, so there is no true comparison of like with like.

Drive cache, processor, bus speed and RAM are not mentioned at all.

XP Defragmenter is produced by Executive Software, the makers of Diskeeper .

- For the majority of users, the Disk Defragmenter Utility included with XP is sufficient to keep the hard drives in relatively good condition, but it's actually what is known as a Lite, or slightly crippled version, of Diskeeper, a product made by Executive Software. You may have noticed that even after the drive has been defragmented, there are still gaps showing where no files were shown as being present. What are these gaps and why weren't they eliminated by compacting the files to the beginning of the drive? It's due to limitations imposed by the Lite version of Diskeeper supplied with XP.-


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

WOW...even if it is that much faster on the first run, I'll take it. Have you confirmed that it is only that way on the first run or just a guess. 

Still waiting for any results you have or other actual test results as well.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

And so on subsequent runs, I would definitely want something that was faster.

But even that is just the Defrag time performance measurements.

Maybe to help with your performance documentation on this, to be more specific, what are the better performance performance results the many people are getting? Again, I would assume that if you are making the claim, would by now be a fair of data to back that up. Just haven't seen it.

1. Since there is the claim of increased performance, what is being increased? Boot time? Time to open various applications? Network throughput? It's got to be something that can be timed. A general sense of things being faster really doesn't offer that much. Then measure that performance before any changes are made. 

2. Only make one change at a time. So if padding the MFT is supposedly what is increasing performance, just do that. Do not do any file cleanups, spyware scans, derfags etc. 

3. Document the current configuration. So if padding MFT is the big performance gain, what was it before and after. 

4. Then measure you performance again and post the results.

I've looked for quite a while to find something anywhere that would help with this but just haven't found much. In fact the only reason I posted just those two links, is that's all I could come across (other than advertising kind of desciptions).
__________________


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Bob, I have it, it is faster than the windows defragmenter. I don't really think it offers much more in performance after defrag but it is allot faster.

I got the thing so I could forget about defragging once and for all. It is great for that. It actually plugs right in to the windows defragmenter as they are both made by executive software. Is it worth the $29? To me it was but it wouldn't be to others maybe.

Is it the greatest thing since pizza? Nope.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Never said it wasn't a good program. I have it too. 

The only issue was claims by rampage that after only padding a MFT that was only 75% full anyway, there was a significant performance increase. This part seemed to need some better performance documentation and I haven't been able to find or been provided any.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

I did it yesterday for the first time. I benched the machine using HDtach, PCmark, and PCpitstop. There was no real difference in the before and after. There was a 10 point margin in PCmark which can happen if you run it twice anyway. I lost 2 points at PCpitstop, same thing, it could happen in 2 different runs. HDTach was exactly the same. 

I trust what I saw more than what I would read anyway. No difference really for me, but maybe in an abused machine?? Who knows? Not me.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

That's kinda what I found more real world testing with it. 

For example, had two partitions which had never been defragged for a few years, one for the OS and the other for programs and data. The only difference I could find before and after was that Adobe Photoshop went from 28 to 27.5 seconds to start. Everything else, boot time, all other apps which opened quick anyway, data transfer, just didn't have all that speed increase you keep hearing about. And this was on two partitions that Diskeeper showed as being badly fragmented. 

Mostly I find that keeping a clean system, free of spyware, is the biggest thing you can do in maintaining your computer.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Skivvywaver,

I also want to thank you for taking the time to actually do some performance testing and post the results. It is important when making dramatic claims of benefit when using any program to actually have something to back it up.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Yeah, but I still like my diskeeper. I am a lazy type except for looking for spyware. I hunt spyware constantly. I hardly ever get any, but when I do............!! 

I run too many security programs to get much. Sometimes I'll get a cookie. The last real good one I got was ncase I think. It wasn't that hard to get rid of. About 3-4 years ago I got hit by lop.com and ended up reformatting to get rid of it. Spyware and hijackers were new back then and I had no idea how to get rid of it.

Luckily I have never had a CWS or anything even close to one. Whew!


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Yep I have it also. Used various versions for years.


----------



## jgjulio (Apr 15, 2004)

Ok, am I reading these post correctly. Diskeeper is a good program, you guys have it. But it really does NOT increase performance when you have a defraged drive.
Other than have a "neat" drive why defrag?
Thanks


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Oh no, it does things windows defrag won't do. I do a boot time defrag about once a month to defrag the MFT and paging file. That is done by going into "change your settings" then choose "set boot time defrag. You will then have options of defragging the page file, the MFT, putting all folders together, etc. 

You can't do that in windows. I mean it is a great defrag program. I just didn't get a great performance increase, (actually none) padding the MFT with it.

I would advise against padding the MFT actually. I had some isues yesterday with "drive not mounted correctly" that I had to do a chkdsk, chkdsk /p, and a chkdsk /r from the recovery console to fix. Check disk wouldn't run normally. I am not sure if padding the MFT did it but it is the only thing I had done that I normally do not do.

If you decide to pad the MFT, be advised that this "may" cause problems. I am not sure what did it.

The boot time defrag has proven to be safe for me. I'll not be padding any MFT again.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Skivvywaver,

Interesting perspective on padding the MFT. Recently there seems to be a lot of posts saying how much this increases performance. Nothing documented to say if that was the only thing done or not. 

For example, if in addition to padding the MFT, the drive was also cleaned up and defragged, there would be no way of knowing which change altered the performance.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Yeah Bob, but I am not sure if padding the MFT "dismounted" < (for lack of a better word) my drive or not. The thing is, in all my days I have never seen "drive not mounted correctly" on any of my machines.

That makes me suspicious of the process.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

This sounds more like a 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' scenario.
Thanks for doing the testing Skivvy, hope your comp settles down


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Its all good now. Thanks Jack.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Given the lack of any other performance data, here's an interesting comparison:

http://www.perfectdisk.com/products.../PD7_DK9_Defragmentation_Performance_Test.pdf

Admittedly it is from a vendor testing their product against a competing program. But it does point out that there are many alternatives and reasons why other packages might be better for specific purposes.

I did try Diskeeper9 and it was so slow on the first pass I finally just gave up trying to see if it would even make a difference. I had too much real work to do.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Bob, That is interesting. Being the guinia pig I have become I have downloaded a copy of perfect disk.

I have defragmented with diskeeper 9 and run it though a couple of times to where diskeeper reports no fragmentation.

Perfectdisk is reporting 1584 fragmented files and I am letting it run. When it is done I will run diskeeper and analyze the drive. If diskeeper still doesn't report any fragmentation I would guess perfectdisk wins.

If diskeeper does report fragmentation it is down to the 2 programs fighting over placement of files. Here is a shot of DK9. I am actually hoping diskeeper is better. LOL I have money invested in it.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

This is diskeeper's analysis after defragging with perfectdisk. Am I seeing what I think I am seeing? 

Diskeeper is reporting 0% fragmentation and the space between the defragged files is gone.

Looks to me like DK got its butt kicked.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

A shot of perfect disk just for grins.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Changing from one program to another will always take longer the first time because they don't all just defrag but put things in some type of order like used most, used less etc. So your not just defraging the first time with a new program but moving the order of all the files on your PC so yes it will take a long time. Then they learn what is used less and most and as you use your PC so to get things up and working it's best with any of the programs takes time to get to know what programs you use and how often you use them. 
It is not good to go from using one defrag program to another because of the way they each work. Best to use one and stay with that one, But it will take a loooooooong time the first time and get faster as it learns. So defrag each day or so for a week or two with any new defrag program and your see it will get faster. The more programs and things you do with your PC the more it has to learn. If your just using your PC to get online and email then once the defrag order has been changed it will not change after that or so little you will not be able to tell..


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Hewee, I agree totally with what you said. One program and only one because of conflicts etc.

The thing I noticed while being the guinia pig is that perfect disk does a much better job at defragging free space. It also puts folders together while defragging in windows, diskeeper has to do a boot time defrag in order to defrag folders to one location.

What surprised me is the fact that after running perfect disk diskeeper reported no fragmentation of the drive and diskeepers analysis showed that perfect disk did a better job.

My largest free space before perfect disk was 18 gigabytes, after perfect disk it was 37 gigabytes. I am a diskeeper user however I am inclined to think perfect disk did a better job than my diskeeper did. That hurts a little. I only have a 30 day trial of perfect disk and I don't think I'll be buying it. What I do say is that if somebody were right now deciding on what to buy I think I would have to recommend perfect disk over diskeeper. I have been using diskeeper for a long time now.

If I have to upgrade at cost to the next diskeeper I will most likely not pay it even at the reduced price. If putting out more money I would buy perfect disk. I had no idea there was a better defragger than diskeeper pro. Last week I would have scorned the idea that such a thing existed. Perfect disk has everything diskeeper has (boot time defrag etc.) but from my "independent" test perfect disk did a better job.

I was hoping DK would at least be as good.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

The test is not to necessarily go from one program to another and see what is left over.

The best test is to see how long a program takes to defragment a particular hard drive with each program. In order to really evaluate each one, you then need to restore the hard drive to the way it was from the beginning. Then start with the second program you want to test. 

That will give you your initial results on how fast a particular program will work with a particular drive.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Well if you just ran the perfect disk and then the diskeeper it just may show that there was no fragmentation. But you can do that with the same program too. Most be the order they each read things that is used to see if things are fragmented or not and if it was looking at the free space or not. If it was seeing most all the fragmented in the free space then it was not really the files on your PC so that is not bad even with the high 1584 fragmented files you seen. I use Norton speed disk and you have a optio to see just how much each file if fragmented. You open it up and it does the scan and says how much it is fragmented but then just cancel. Then your see this box come up and on the left has every folder on the drive and on the right it has what files are in each folder. Not easy to look at every folder and scroll tru the list on the right either because it would take a loooong time but you can just look at folders you know are being used like windows, system etc.

Well seeing how you have the perfect disk on your PC then keep it there for 30 days so you can report back on how it is. Yea the amount of free space they give you can change too from one program to another so that's a hard one. Norton set mine up real low the first time so I went into windows and changed it to so I had a bigger amount of VM to a min of 1536 or about 1.5 MB then with no max. Norton puts that "Optimize Swap File" at the very start of the drive. See the brown in the image. If I need more then that I still have the free space. Your see all the other things that do not get used at the end of the drive. 

Yea I heard diskeeper was good but it sounds like Perfect disk is better or more Perfect. 

So look around and see if you have the options like in the image here to see just what is getting fragmented.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

But that does nothing to provide speed comparisons on how long it takes each program to Defrag a drive. It only goes to show the differences after it has already been done. 

For example, a better test would be something like: 

1. Image a badly fragmented drive

2. Get statistics on it's current condition in terms of how many files are fragmented, how many fragments etc.

3. Get some performance stats on how this translates into real world benefit. For example, boot time, time it takes to load some large applications, time it takes to load large data files, shutdown time etc.

4. The Defrag the drive according to the manufacturer's recommendations

5. Get statistics on it's configuration after the Defrag (how much was done etc.)

6. Then get the real world performance tests again. Assuming that the purpose of doing all this is to increase the actual performance of the computer, these are the numbers I really care about. For example, if after doing a several hour Defrag, nothing has changed significantly, then all you have done is have a nice statistic on how fragmented your hard drive used to be but no real benefit in actually using it.

7. Only then should you run a second Defrag program and see what else gets defragged and then run the same performance tests again.

Now you have how one Defrag program works, how long it takes, and most importantly what the benefit is.

Re-image the drive back to it's original condition and do the same with as many programs as you want.

For me, most of what I really care about are any eventual performance gains.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Bob, What about free space fragmentation? Does it really matter? After all it is free space meaning it is not being used. 

I can see where perfectdisk did a much better job with free space. I can also see where it placed folders together. Do these things really matter in your opinion?


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Yea Bob that does sound like the best way to test. 


I would say yes Skivvywaver because the free space really has thing on the drive but it just no long as any links to it. 
If you have a unerase program your find lots and lots of files that are listed but you really do not want them. I can gets 100's and 100's of the same files listed every day. That means that same file was in 100's of places to. Like 241 cookies just today. Each time I am at a web site fourm and any changes like login, readed threads etc are made it really makes a new file to save too. Then there are a ton of other files too that are made when programs open and close. Even files made that you will not see on your PC if you look for them after you had closed the program because they are made as temp files when the program is open, used or closed. 
I can defrag the free space and always do. 
I can pick "full Optimizetion" that does the whole drive and that is the free space.
Then there is the files only and the free space only you can defrag.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

If you use your computer a lot, you can always defrag something. 

But if the goal is to increase performance, you need to determine how often it's really worth it for what benefit you get.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Kudos to the effort you guys are putting into the comparisons . :up:

Real thought and effort in displaying what the products accomplish.. :up: __:up:


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

One point re: doing timings.

You have to know whether the defrag program that you are testing, is a single pass or multiple pass one.

I "believe" Norton Speedisk and Perfect Disk are single pass programs where Diskeeper is a multipass. 

So, you would not want to compare times between Speedisk and Diskeeper because they would be invalid. 

You will notice that periodically on a second run of the XP defrag or Diskeeper that there will be less fragmented files than before. 

As for free space fragmentation, "my" view is that it is useful. As files are allocated into the existing free space, if those areas are scattered throughout the drive, then the resulting file is now scattered (fragmented) throughout the drive.

And, this is one of the reasons the Set it and Forget it philosophy works for Diskeeper. It does not defrag free space, so newly created files may be in a fragmented state, and since it is a multipass program, it needs to run more than once to be effective.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

I like messing with programs and comparing. I think we see that PerfectDisk is a better defragger. I am not pleased with the results.

The guy that started this post was asking for opinions and I recommended diskeeper. Diskeeper is a good product but PerfectDisk appears to be better. Nothing like testing for yourself and seeing the outcome first hand.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

If different defrag progams use different methods, could you simply time how long each one takes to complete the task? If a programs does it is multiple or single passes, just start the clock at the beginning and stop when it is finished.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

Bob:

I "think" that there is no way to tell when the last pass is actually "the last pass".

Ie: Everytime you run it, it may or may not find something to do.

As well, you have to be aware of what the programs are actually defragging. Even if Diskeeper was a single pass program, one of the reasons you could never compare it to Speedisk, is because it does not defrag available space, while Speedisk does.

Programs like Perfect disk defrag even more in the NTFS structure than the MFT. Thus, I would expect, Perfect Disk may take a bit longer doing this.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

It does take longer (perfect disk) but if you are defragging at 2 am it really doesn't matter too often.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Thanks WhitPhil.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Skivvywaver,

I also don't like to Defrag while I'm actually trying to use the computer. Mostly do it while I'm away for at night.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

You need to keep in mind that the NTFS file system is specifically designed to allow for expansion in file's size and leaving space is not necessarily a bad thing in NTFS and does not always lead to increased fragmentation. Linux file systems work the same way. Diskeeper was predominantly used in the Server environment where it got its reputation for being 100% reliable and safe. Not to mention it is designed to offer the best performance while you actually use your Computer, since servers in general can be constantly accessed. With that being said Diskeeper offers multiple defragmentations options:

Max Disk Performance
Quick Defragmentation
File Performance Defragmentation
Free Space Consolidation

It should be noted that Max Disk Performance is NOT associated with Free Space Consolidation and things like moving the Page File around as opposed to just defragmenting it do not necessarily improve performance. When the Page File is accessed it immediately needs to page those files onto or off the disk so having it near to the files location (which is not in the page file) improves performance.

Now Diskeeper and other offer a boot time performance improvements but these can be done with a free program: Page Defrag

There is no question Diskeeper improves Harddrive performance, it more thoroughly defragments the Harddrive as opposed to the built in Disk Defragmenter and the Set it and Forget it Smart Scheduler eliminates the end user from having to ever worry about running it again. This is one of the most highly recommended programs for those in IT.

I highly recommend Diskeeper Pro. :up:


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Other good Defrag programs are Perfect Disk and O&O Defrag. These also have pagefile, MFT and boot-time defragmenting.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

Bob Cerelli said:


> Other good Defrag programs are Perfect Disk and O&O Defrag. These also have pagefile, MFT and boot-time defragmenting.


Yeah almost all of them do and anyone can do this for free with PageDefrag.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Since there are so many good programs that can Defrag the hard drive, maybe the title of the post should be more be something like:

"To Defrag or Not to Defrag"

Rather than recommending a particular vendor's product. They all seem to do a pretty good job.


----------



## jgjulio (Apr 15, 2004)

OK, I am the guy who started this post. 
The discussion has been very interesting and informative.
I assumed at the beginning of the post that Defrag was "good".
I subsequently have read other articles from various "experts" that say defraging on XP is a waste of time. The new OS's dont need to be defraged.
Do They?
If so, what should be defraged. The harddisk, the page file, etc.
I think that most people are looking for 1. increase in reliability (resistance to crash) and 2. maintaining optimum performance.
Does defrag actually help with these two issues?


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

There used to be no defrag program built into Windows NT because it was thought NTFS didn't need defragged. Microsoft evidently rethought the process because all newer NTFS systems have a defrag program built in.

It isn't a crucial as on a Fat system but it still needs to be done at least occasionally.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

No Windows NT, 2000 and XP can all benefit from a good defragmentation program. Performance is the number one reason to use them. Stability is a potential problem that sometimes defragmenting can improve but hands down you will see better overall system performance using a defragmenter.

I also beg to disagree that their are so many good defragmenters out their, IMO their are only two Diskeeper and PerfectDisk. Diskeeper IMO wins out due to its long reputation for 100% reliability and its maintenance free Set it and Forget it Smart Scheduler.


----------



## jgjulio (Apr 15, 2004)

Diskeeper has the option of defraging the page file and the mft on bootup.
Is this important to do? Why
Thanks


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

> *MFT FRAGMENTATION*
> by Lance Jensen, Executive Software Customer Support Director
> 
> The Master File Table (MFT) is the heart of the NTFS file system. It
> ...


A fragmented MFT can slow the down file access for the whole system.



> *PAGEFILE FRAGMENTATION*
> By Lance Jensen, Executive Software Tech Support Director
> 
> Pagefile fragmentation can impact system performance. How much
> ...


A fragmented Pagefile can create excess disk fragmentation.

Yes you should do both.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

Just a couple of comments:

1. Even though the MFT may be fragmented, the affect "may" not be noticeable (obviously depending on the magnitude of the fragmentation), since the overflow is in a "Zone" located right beside the MFT. So, from the hardware perspective, the disk heads do not need to travel far.

2. Pagefile Fragmentation. Yes, a fragmented file will affect the overall fragmentation level of the drive. But, note that Diskeeper (which this thread is about) does NOT defrag free space, which means that newly created files may be in a fragmented state as quickly as they are created. And, is just as bad as the drawback noted above. (it can prevent some files from being created contiguously).

Lastly, note that the article was written in 1998 AND it appears to be speaking to NT not XP. 
(both systems run NTFS, but the XP implementation is not the same as NT)


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

Defraging both will reduce overall system file fragmentation. On that reason alone it is worth defragmenting them.



> But, note that Diskeeper (which this thread is about) does NOT defrag free space, which means that newly created files may be in a fragmented state as quickly as they are created. And, is just as bad as the drawback noted above. (it can prevent some files from being created contiguously).


Why do people keep saying this? Diskeeper DOES defragment free space. If you choose this defragment option: *Free Space Consolidation*

I already explained that fragmenting all of your free space does not necessarily improve performance or reduce overall system fragmentation because NTFS by design leaves space for files to change in size so they do not fragment as much. All free space consolidation does is exactly that give you more free space.

Also NTFS, MFT and the Pagefile have not changed so drastically that the article does not still apply.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

Mastertech said:


> Defraging both will reduce overall system file fragmentation. On that reason alone it is worth defragmenting them.


In the case of the pagefile, yes but not the MFTs since that area can't be used by the "normal" file system



Mastertech said:


> Why do people keep saying this?


Probably because that is what Executive Software states.

Clearly, the speed of the disk, meaning how fast you can access the data on it, is more important than the prettiness of the display or the consolidation of all the free space into one place. Free space consolidation might be important if you haveto create one gigantic contiguous file, but it has no effect on performance



Mastertech said:


> All free space consolidation does is exactly that give you more free space.


Meaning, I presume, more "contiguous" free space.



Mastertech said:


> Also NTFS, MFT and the Pagefile have not changed so drastically that the article does not still apply.


Yes, that's true. As I said above, they were "comments". But, even though the base NTFS, MFT and Pagefile haven't changed, the OS running against them has. Ie: XP vs NT. Technology has also advanced, just a little, in the last 7 years.

One difference in the NTFS area:
On an XP formated partition, the MFT is placed 3GB further into the drive, whereas on Win2k and earlier versions fo NT the MFT was at the front.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

WhitPhil,

Thanks much for the information. Just a very minor change to the link:

http://www.execsoft.com/diskeeper/faqs/faqs.asp#dis1


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

> In the case of the pagefile, yes but not the MFTs since that area can't be used by the "normal" file system


Defragmenting any file that is routinely accessed will improve performance.

Executive Software States the following:


> It is a common misconception that a defragmented disk should look very neat and tidy in the analysis screen, with solid blue bars all the way across the screen (representing fragmentation-free files) and the rest white space (representing consolidated space). Clearly, the speed of the disk, meaning how fast you can access the data on it, is more important than the prettiness of the display or the consolidation of all the free space into one place. Free space consolidation might be important if you have to create one gigantic contiguous file, but it has no effect on performance. As a result, Diskeeper uses algorithms that achieve the highest speed from your drive regardless of the arrangement of the free spaces on the drive and on the screen. And it does so without wasting time on excessive consolidation of free space. We simply go for the fastest possible file access times and then stop.


Regardless there is a Free Space Consolidation Option for those who want more free space. So saying Diskeeper does not consolidate free space is simply not true.


----------



## jgjulio (Apr 15, 2004)

When you ask Diskeeper to defrag the MFT or page file on boot up, you get a recommendation to back up your system. Does this mean that this process is tricky and may end in a corruption of your file system?. Is it safe to set this option to defrag these important files each time you boot (1X a day) as an ongoing maintenance process?


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

It is perfectly safe to defragment the MFT on bootup. Diskeeper is 100% secure and safe. It is unnecessary to defrag this more then once a month.


----------



## Rockn (Jul 29, 2001)

Do you have Windows XP? You already have Diskkeeper on your PC.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

The version in Windows XP is an old lite version of Diskeeper. It does not have any of the automated features, is slower and does not defragment your system as well as the full version.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Assuming that all the discussion regarding defragmenting your hard drive has the ultimate purpose of increasing the performance of your computer. 

Something I haven't seen measured or discussed yet is, after running XP's built-in Defrag program, how much performance increase do you get from using Diskeeper. 

For example, if it defrags more files but there is no difference in performance, it seems more like a technical specification discussion rather than anything you will actually wind up noticing when you use your computer.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

Here are some Comparisons. I can honestly say you will notice a difference.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

I would expect that Diskeeper would do a better job at defragmenting. But have never seen any performance data detailing what the increase would be. Just that it defrags more files. 

For example, in the independent test in that link, for a 150 gig drive starting out with 49,847 fragmented files, Diskeeper left it with 0 fragmented files. But the built-in one only left 24. And out of 325,608 initial Total Excess fragments, it left only 318. Not too bad.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

The performance increase is definitely noticeable especially over an extended period of time as Set It and Forget It Smart Scheduling with I/O Smart enabled keep the disk fully optimized and never interrupts your work.

The performance of "Disk Defragmenter" should be ok since it based on a lite version of Diskeeper but it is not the same nor as good.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Still seems pretty general with no real data to back it up.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

The best thing people can do is download the trialware and notice the difference themselves. The performance improvement is obvious.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

I have and didn't notice any performance change after running Diskeeper after the built-in defragger. It did defragment some more files but didn't notice any difference in boot time or the time it takes to load even the largest program.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

It all depends on how badly fragmented your system was prior to defragmenting and how many files you have. Every system is different but if you can't tell how much better Diskeeper 9 is over the built-in one then I can't help you.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Just didn't seem like from what little data has been shown there would be that much difference. 

For example, from the link with that defraged files comparison, a drive that started with approximately 50,000 fragmented files, was left with only 24 after running the XP Defrag. It would seem that this would have provided a tremendous increase in performance.

But just can't see how defragging those remaining 24 would have in comparison made that much of a difference.

I guess if the claims are unsupported then that is the way it will have to be.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

You would have to take into account file placement as an improved defraging algorithm would arrange files more optimally as well.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Without any actual performance data, this is still only a guess at what might happen but so far there is nothing to support it.


----------



## brenth (Apr 6, 2005)

I've been using Diskkeeper 9 (Home Edition) for 6 months and really like it. It's much quick than either the defrag utility with XP or Norton Speeddisk. I find a noticeable improvement in system speed if I haven't defragged in a couple of weeks. It also defrags the different partitions on my Maxtor USB drive.

I don't use the set-and-forget it feature. I just don't like having a bunch of programs running in the background and using resources.

Pefore DK9, for several years I used the free edition they used to have. Likewise, was impressed by the performance improvements.

Brent


----------



## polak (Oct 12, 2003)

Just an observation on rate of fragmentation after defragmenting with Diskeeper 8.0 and Perfect Disk 7.0. After defragmenting with Perfect Disk 7.0, it appears fragmentation occurs at a much slower rate than after defragmenting with Diskeeper 8.0.

After defragmenting with Diskeeper 8.0, using my PC normally (no installs and uninstalls, updates to software etc.), not defragmenting again with Diskeeper for several days, and then again performing an analysis of fragmentation levels with Diskeeper, it has been my experience that the number of fragmented files and fragments Diskeeper found was dramatically higher than when putting Pefect Disk 7.0 through a similar test.

Can't say that this was particularly scientific but it sure got my attention enough that after years of using Diskeeper, have decided to switch to Perfect Disk. Concluded that it was to my advantage not to have to defragment as often and move the files around as often that defragmentation entails.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

First off you should be using Diskeeper v9.0 and second look at the Performance Map with Diskeeper not the Drive Map since it is a common misconception that slightly fragmented files impact performance. As for you comment about defragmenting as often? With Diskeeper's "Set it and Forget" Smart Scheduling with I/O Smart you never have to defragment you computer again, ever.

Here are some performance numbers comparing Diskeeper, Perfect Disk and O&O Defrag: Defragger Timer Scores


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Guess actual testing before and after to see what real improvement in performance is also a good idea. 

For example, what actual changes are there to things like the boot time and application loading. Otherwise it is just moving files around the hard drive and a bunch of colors on a map.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

How are you going to do real world testing? Every drive is different. I can take a massively fragmented drive for thousands of files and benchmarks would show a noticeable improvement or I can take one that the owner defrags regularly and show none. The best solution is to run Diskeeper on your system and look at the Performance Tab. It will show the performance difference of the whole drive vs. just defragmented files. Since every system and drive state is different, this is the best solution.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Benchmarking is easy.

But you don't want to worry about how each different drive compares to any other. That would be more hard drive performance. For example, I would expect a 7200 rpm drive to outperform a 5400 rpm drive so there is no point in worrying about the different drives.

What you can do is see the differences in performance on the same drive before and after a defrag. Over the years I have tended not to rely on what a manufacturer claims their product will do but actually test for myself. That is why I don't like to rely on pretty colored graphics to make any decisions. 

So if what you want is an increase in speed, measure it before and after a defrag. Pretty basic and simple. 

So for example, if after a defrag, things like your boot time and time to load large applications decreases, then it helped. But I never put much credence in what the manufacturer thinks should have happened. More on what the actual changes were.

For example, I had a hard drive that hadn't been defragged in something like two years. According to diskeeper there should have been something like a 30+% increase in performance. But the only thing I could really tell was that Adobe Photoshop went from 29 to 28 seconds to load. Everything else like boot time and loading other apps were too small of a difference to get that excited about. Certainly no where near what the manufacturer claimed would be the increase. And given how long all this took, in the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure I saved any time at all ;-)


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

Please, I've seen no remote proof that the performance claims from diskeeper are fabricated. If anything they appear right on. On badly fragmented drives you don't have to run any benchmarks to see the results.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Guess if you would rather not confirm for yourself that is ok. Maybe an analogy is that this is like trusting the car manufacturer to actually say what your gas mileage is going to be on your car. Until you check for yourself, you never really know.

For example, I had a hard drive that hadn't been defragged in something like two years. According to diskeeper there should have been something like a 30+% increase in performance. But the only thing I could really tell was that Adobe Photoshop went from 29 to 28 seconds to load. Everything else like boot time and loading other apps were too small of a difference to get that excited about. Certainly no where near what the manufacturer claimed would be the increase. And given how long all this took, in the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure I saved any time at all ;-)

So all I am recommending is for people, if they are really interested to see how much better their computer performs after a defrag, is to measure it for themselves. Doesn't seem like it should be such a radical concept.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

Did it say 30+% for Adobe Photoshop? What if Adobe Photoshop was already defragmented? The Drive Performance improvement is for the whole drive, which means if you used most of the files on the drive you would see a 30% improvement as a whole not for a single application.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

I'm not exactly sure why just Photoshop was mentioned when other statements were made. 

Perhaps this was just missed - "Everything else like boot time and loading other apps were too small of a difference to get that excited about."

So to help clarify this further, in no instance, for everything else, for any program, for data files, was there anything like a 30% improvement. And again just in case this was missed, this was on a drive that hadn't been defragmented in years. 

But I'm also not sure why this is such a difficult topic to understand. Again, all I am recommending is for people, if they are really interested to see how much better their computer performs after a defrag, is to measure it for themselves. Doesn't seem like it should be such a radical concept.

Maybe it will help. But it is sure nice to know for certain.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Maybe an another analogy to help explain the importance in testing for yourself.

Suppose you started adding some additive to your gas to help improve mileage. The manufacturer claims you will get a 20% increase in gas mileage. 

Now first off, I would assume that most people using this would have a goal of actually increasing their gas mileage. Not just doing the act of putting something in their gas tank ... just to say they did.

I would also assume that if you wanted to find out how well product actually worked and actually verify the manufacturer's claim, you would measure your gas mileage before and after using their product. 

Doesn't seem like much of an unusual or difficult thing to measure the actual results. 

Now I am assuming that people are defragging to increase their computer's performance (as opposed to just defragging to say they did and look at some pretty colors). All I'm saying is to do similar relevant testing before and after a defrag to verify changes in performance. 

Doesn't seem like much of an unusual or difficult thing to measure the actually results here either.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

Again it is not the same thing. Disk use changes by the person. Say someone barely uses his computer and only plays solitaire, would he notice a performance improvement? No. Then again I had a customers machine that was never ever defragmented and was at some 85% fragmentation level. Performance across the board was improved and you didn't have to run any benchmarks to prove it. So I can run a benchmark on my machine that has been using Diskeeper from day one and then defrag, whoa no performance improvement. I can also run one on a system with next to no files or programs installed, again no performance improvement. What does that prove? The defragmenter didn't work? Please.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Not sure if you read the previous posts. 

To help clarify them for you. I obviously don't just play solitare. I don't barely use my computer. Also I would expect that if you defragged each day you wouldn't see much increase in performance. Fortunately none of these things is related to any previous discussions. Fortunately they also have little to do with measuring any relevant performance testing gained by doing a defrag. 

Again, I'm not really sure why these little things were thought up. Maybe previous posts were were unclear. Maybe there has been some difficulty in understanding them. 

To review some key points:

"I had a hard drive that hadn't been defragged in something like two years. According to diskeeper there should have been something like a 30+% increase in performance. But the only thing I could really tell was that Adobe Photoshop went from 29 to 28 seconds to load. Everything else like boot time and loading other apps were too small of a difference to get that excited about." - And to help clarify further, main apps are Outlook, Word, Excel, Photoshop, Frontpage, couple of Dvd editing programs etc. Certainly not solitaire. Prefer Freecell anyway but wouldn't be dumb enough to consider it in regards to measuring performance. 

"in no instance, for everything else, for any program, for data files, was there anything like a 30% improvement. And again just in case this was missed, this was on a drive that hadn't been defragmented in years." -Not daily so that should be a no-brainer to figure out. 

"Benchmarking is easy."

"if what you want is an increase in speed, measure it before and after a defrag. Pretty basic and simple"

"I'm also not sure why this is such a difficult topic to understand. Again, all I am recommending is for people, if they are really interested to see how much better their computer performs after a defrag, is to measure it for themselves. Doesn't seem like it should be such a radical concept."

"All I'm saying is to do similar relevant testing before and after a defrag to verify changes in performance"

And just in case things are further misinterpreted, I never said Defragging wasn't a good idea or that Diskeeper wasn't a wonderful product to use. Fortunately there are many to choose from. 

If any of these remains unclear, please let me know so it can be made even clearer.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

If any of this is unclear let me know

"Performance improvements from Defragmenters varies based on how badly your drive was fragmented to begin with"

Not defragmenting in years means nothing since disk use that would effect fragmentation levels can vary widely between users, it just doesn't happen because more years go by.

Unfortunately your claim that defragmenters are useless and nothing more then colored bars moving around doesn't hold up. I know, I know you didn't say the word "Useless" but you are implying it. And your comparison to Diskeeper's mention of 30% improved performance to read the WHOLE DRIVE is proved bogus because Adobe Photoshop only took one less second to load.  Now since you equate Adobe Photoshop loading to reading your whole drive, I would take everything else you say as laughable.

BTW did you test reading the whole drive before and after?


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

It is all very easy to understand. But it also inaccurate. I was hoping my clarifications would have helped more with the understanding. . Maybe I'm just not wording something right. For example:


Mastertech said:


> Unfortunately your claim that defragmenters are useless and nothing more then colored bars moving around doesn't hold up


*Never said that*. In fact said just the total opposite.

What I did say was - _And just in case things are further misinterpreted, I never said Defragging wasn't a good idea or that Diskeeper wasn't a wonderful product to use. Fortunately there are many to choose from_

=========================



Mastertech said:


> And your comparison to Diskeeper's mention of 30% improved performance to read the WHOLE DRIVE is proved bogus because Adobe Photoshop only took one less second to load. BTW did you test reading the whole drive before and after?


*Never said that either*. For some reason you decided to leave out all that was mentioned.

What I did say was (and for the fourth time now) - _in no instance, for everything else, for any program, for data files, was there anything like a 30% improvement. And again just in case this was missed, this was on a drive that hadn't been defragmented in years_. Also _And to help clarify further, main apps are Outlook, Word, Excel, Photoshop, Frontpage, couple of Dvd editing programs etc._

==========================

Is there some wording in here or other reason that is making it difficult to understand, especially when the exact opposite of what I have been saying gets posted. Hopefully the comparison quotes will help.

It is almost like I keep saying the sky is blue and for some unknown reason you keep posting back that I said it was green. Just don't understand the motive or goal. It's pretty easy to read the quotes I keep needing to continually repost so don't think that is the problem.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

> That is why I don't like to rely on pretty colored graphics to make any decisions.


This is implying that Diskeepers Graphical Representation of the drive's fragmentation level is wrong or inaccurate. Yet you provide no proof of these claims.

It helps to read what I wrote:


> Unfortunately your claim that defragmenters are useless and nothing more then colored bars moving around doesn't hold up. *I know, I know you didn't say the word "Useless" but you are implying it.*





> Never said that either. For some reason you decided to leave out all that was mentioned.
> 
> in no instance, for everything else, for any program, for data files, was there anything like a 30% improvement. And again just in case this was missed, this was on a drive that hadn't been defragmented in years. Also And to help clarify further, main apps are Outlook, Word, Excel, Photoshop, Frontpage, couple of Dvd editing programs etc.


For some reason you fail to read what Diskeeper clearly states:
*"Time to read ALL files on Volume"*

I already explained that length of time means nothing in relation to fragmentations levels but rather how you use the drive. I can use a drive for one day that is 100x more fragmented then someone who has used a drive for ten years. Thus your comments are irrelevant and misleading. You not noticing significant performance improvements from defragmenting in no way means someone else will not.



> It is almost like I keep saying the sky is blue and for some unknown reason you keep posting back that I said it was green.


Not even close.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

I Love *Diskeeper*.

It is *great*.

It _has_ to be. ;-)

And I really love the *BIG BOLD TEXT*. Makes my comments seem so much more important that way ;-)


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

LOL, this thread is still going. This is too funny.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Yep. Some guy started it up again saying how wonderful Diskeeper 9 in particular was and have been loving it.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

If the program didn't work so well I wouldn't waste my time replying.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Like I said, I Love Diskeeper !!!


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

Fantastic!! :up:


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

And from an even earlier quote - "I never said Defragging wasn't a good idea or that Diskeeper wasn't a wonderful product to use. Fortunately there are many to choose from"


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

Yes there are many to choose from but only a handful worth mentioning, Diskeeper being the best for Automatic Defragmenting. :up:


----------

