Diskeeper 10

[qdave]

awesome. getting it now too.

[nomis_nehc]

man, why can't any company ever come out with a sleek interface disk defragmenter. sure i don't stare at it all day, but if you're making it, might as well make it look good. :huh:

[sevastopol]

wow version 9 was very good, this however should be even better, downloading now :)

[xpgeek]

Longtime Diskeeper user here, this is awsome :D .

[Pink Floyd Veteran]

is there any trial we can download?

[d4t4b0mb]

It could just be the way they're marketing it, but this is sounding an awful lot better than the current version of PerfectDisk.

Hmmmm, I may be tempted to switch!

It's not. I tried out v10 after using v9 since it came out...and 10 was bad enough that I switched to PerfectDisk.

[Pink Floyd Veteran]

err nevermind, you have to fill a form and download the .exe

gonna try it for sure!

[boogerjones]

edit: "Why is it crucial to defrag your drives daily?" you've GOT to be kidding me. What a stupid marketing idea :no:

That's a bad marketing idea? What should they say? "Defragging your hard drive is worthless. Don't buy our product!" I don't think you'd last long as a marketing manager.

[Kr0z]

PerfectDisk is way better

Vanilla Ice Cream is even better. :yes:

How do you back up your argument? As a prospective customer looking to buy either product I want you to tell me (as an experienced PerfectDisk advocate) how and why it's better than the competition, which I gather you have obviously tested? Clearly you must have to come to your conclusion, right?

[Guest teckels]

Vanilla Ice Cream is even better. :yes:

How do you back up your argument? As a prospective customer looking to buy either product I want you to tell me (as an experienced PerfectDisk advocate) how and why it's better than the competition, which I gather you have obviously tested? Clearly you must have to come to your conclusion, right?

I can tell you why. Diskeeper does not consolidate the free space on the hard drive by writing all the current files so they are contiguous leaving no free space between them. When Diskeeper defragments it leaves gaps between the existing files. So, what do you think happens when new files get written to the disk? They get broken up into FRAGMENTS and written into those empty spaces that Diskeeper left behind. Why do you think they want to continuously defrag your hard drive?

Perfectdisk uses a different strategy. It rewrites your files so that not only are they optimally placed for operation, but they are written contiguously, leaving no gaps for further fragmentation within existing files. Of course with normal use files get changed and deleted, but with regular scheduled defragmention, Perfectdisk will have less to do with each subsequent process.

[gaurav]

hmm, not as good as PerfectDisk, this?

i like Diskeeper's GUI, but well, performance over visuals.

[ev0|]

Huge UI improvement over 9 IMO.

Also, the I-FAAST technology is really cool.

I can tell you why. Diskeeper does not consolidate the free space on the hard drive by writing all the current files so they are contiguous leaving no free space between them. When Diskeeper defragments it leaves gaps between the existing files. So, what do you think happens when new files get written to the disk? They get broken up into FRAGMENTS and written into those empty spaces that Diskeeper left behind. Why do you think they want to continuously defrag your hard drive?

Perfectdisk uses a different strategy. It rewrites your files so that not only are they optimally placed for operation, but they are written contiguously, leaving no gaps for further fragmentation within existing files. Of course with normal use files get changed and deleted, but with regular scheduled defragmention, Perfectdisk will have less to do with each subsequent process.

In Diskeeper 10, this is not true. You can configure the type of defragmentation so that it consolidates free space. This might not have been true of older versions of Diskeeper, but it is now.

This version also includes I-FAAST, which does similar optimization to what PerfectDisk does, and it also allows you to pad the MFT so that fragmentation occurs less frequently. I'm not saying PerfectDisk is no good, it's fine. but your statement above is no longer really accurate. IMO, both products are pretty much equal, but I'd rather use Diskeeper because i find it offers more control than PD.

[olavinto]

For those who want to test it before purhasing: you can get a trial version of Diskeeper 10 from FileForum (among many other similar sites of course).

"Diskeeper is an automatic disk defragmenter that features scheduling and a high level of configuration ability, and can defragment even critical system files. Fragmentation occurs during normal Windows operation, as files are broken up in pieces and saved on different parts of the hard disk. This increases the amount of time it takes to access single files, and bogs down system performance."

[Shining Arcanine]

Kind of sad that Diskeper rolls this out for sale prior to making it available to people who pay for a maintenance contract that entitles them to free updates. Guess they just don't care about their existing customers.

They're probably trying to avoid honoring some of the maintaince contracts. It just shows how much those are worth. Thankfully I purchased Diskeeper 9 two months ago thinking that Diskeeper would be avaliable soon based off how frequently Executive Software releases new versions of Diskeeper. Hopefully they'll start distributing diskeeper 10 to customers within the next ten months. If they do, I get it for $7.49, which is the cost of the maintaince contract. :D

[Cyber Dog]

I can tell you why. Diskeeper does not consolidate the free space on the hard drive by writing all the current files so they are contiguous leaving no free space between them. When Diskeeper defragments it leaves gaps between the existing files. So, what do you think happens when new files get written to the disk? They get broken up into FRAGMENTS and written into those empty spaces that Diskeeper left behind. Why do you think they want to continuously defrag your hard drive?

Perfectdisk uses a different strategy. It rewrites your files so that not only are they optimally placed for operation, but they are written contiguously, leaving no gaps for further fragmentation within existing files. Of course with normal use files get changed and deleted, but with regular scheduled defragmention, Perfectdisk will have less to do with each subsequent process.

It is not necessarily a good strategy to cram all data into one section of the drive. What happens when an existing file needs to grow? If it has room to expand, no fragmentation. If it's crammed in with other files...instant fragmentation. Where will this happen? System files like the registry, swap files, game data...etc. In fact, total space consolidation only makes sense if you're planning on saving a file so large it consumes all the free space on the drive. The average small document or system file will hardly be affected.

In my own experience, Diskeeper has been hundreds of times faster than PD, and has much better scheduling options. I have yet to try version 10, however.

[ssb]

It is not necessarily a good strategy to cram all data into one section of the drive. What happens when an existing file needs to grow? If it has room to expand, no fragmentation. If it's crammed in with other files...instant fragmentation.

Sorry but I don't agree with that. Just think what happens when copying, moving or adding files if there are holes in disk's free space. All added or moved files will be fragmented across disk.

Freespace fragmentation also makes disk heads moving all time seeking for contiguous free block. That's why computers seem faster after been defragmented with PerfectDisk.

In my own experience, Diskeeper has been hundreds of times faster than PD, and has much better scheduling options. I have yet to try version 10, however.

Comparing programs using different defrag strategies isn't that fair. When PerfectDisk is configured not to use "SmartPlacement" or "Agressive free space consolidation" it is as fast as Diskeeper if not faster. Offline defragment is a different story, PerfectDisk is times faster than DK.

That doesn't mean Diskeeper isn't an excellent defragger, it is. But PerfectDisk does noticeably better job when performance is considered.

Edited December 9, 2005 by ssb

[gxsaurav]

hmm, i simply got a Single PC, with 80 GB SATA HD, 2 partitions, one of 10 GB & rest as the other partition, running Windows XP SP2, & NTFS, I m currently using Diskeeper 8, do u guys think there will be anybenifit from upgrading to Diskeeper 10, for just a single PC, & 2 partitions

[iller]

Well let's twist this up...

I have been using perfectdisk for about 3? weeks and yes it speeds the system up a little.

It even made BF2 load faster and I didn't even have the 5 min lag when I joined a server anymore.But> World of warcraft went berserk with even more loading time. Now when I use the normal defrag again that is a part of windows BF2 has gone back to lag but WoW is doing a lot better.

Do you think that this is a coincidence or is it really affected by the defragmentation program?

[Cyber Dog]

Sorry but I don't agree with that. Just think what happens when copying, moving or adding files if there are holes in disk's free space. All added or moved files will be fragmented across disk.

Not true at all. Most of the "holes" are plenty large enough to store new files, while still allowing existing files to expand. I like how you skipped quoting my point that the only time your strategy is necessary is when creating files so large that they'll actually consume the remainder of the free space. Of course there are exceptions in either case, but percentage-wise you'll create more fragmentation with no free space for files to grow than with some "holes" in the order.

Perhaps you would like to explain to the group how many Linux/Unix based filesystems (ie ext3) can avoid fragmentation by design. Here's a hint...it's not total free space consolidation. :)

[mipra]

Got another vote for PerfectDisk! I am not trying to say bad about Diskeeper in its own thread. But, after installing DK 10 and make the proper defragmantation, I didnt notice so much different in perfomance wise. Good thing about diskeeper is, it uses 'english' when it analyzes.

Perfect Disk always gives customers a bunch of numbers and figures which some of us might not be able to understand.

So, next time PD wants to update..make sure it's more user friendly..at least make the interface as good as DK. DK has been doing a great job in interface.

[Wordsworth]

Huge UI improvement over 9 IMO.

Also, the I-FAAST technology is really cool.

In Diskeeper 10, this is not true. You can configure the type of defragmentation so that it consolidates free space. This might not have been true of older versions of Diskeeper, but it is now.

This version also includes I-FAAST, which does similar optimization to what PerfectDisk does, and it also allows you to pad the MFT so that fragmentation occurs less frequently. I'm not saying PerfectDisk is no good, it's fine. but your statement above is no longer really accurate. IMO, both products are pretty much equal, but I'd rather use Diskeeper because i find it offers more control than PD.

Just wanted to thank you for calling to my attention the I-FAAST feature in the Premier version of Diskeeper 10. I downloaded Diskeeper 10 Professional, but not the Premier version so I originally missed out on the I-FAAST feature. I thought the new Diskeeper to be no big deal, but your post caused me to download the Premier edition. What a difference I-FAAST feature makes! I've been a big fan of O&O 8 with the access defrag strategy, but this beats O&O 8. I also own Perfect Disk 7 build 46 and so far I think the Premier version takes PD 7. I used to rank the major defraggers this way: O&O 8, Perfect Disk 7, VoptXP 7.22, then Diskeeper 9. I think Diskeeper Professional Premier 10 just might take the cake now.

[ssb]

Not true at all. Most of the "holes" are plenty large enough to store new files, while still allowing existing files to expand. I like how you skipped quoting my point that the only time your strategy is necessary is when creating files so large that they'll actually consume the remainder of the free space. Of course there are exceptions in either case, but percentage-wise you'll create more fragmentation with no free space for files to grow than with some "holes" in the order.

Perhaps you would like to explain to the group how many Linux/Unix based filesystems (ie ext3) can avoid fragmentation by design. Here's a hint...it's not total free space consolidation. :)

The following is a quote from this Microsoft article

A partially full disk contains unused space, known as free space. Ideally, this space would be available in a few contiguous portions of the disk. And while it?s good to have free space, it?s not good if it?s fragmented. Free space fragmentation refers to file space that?s broken into small pieces, rather than joined together. This type of fragmentation results in slowed performance because of the time it takes for the disk head to move to different points on the disk to find free space and then write the file. Fragmented free space also increases the possibility of file fragmentation; when a file is larger than the space it?s being written to, the file fragments.

Linux and BSD file systems are designed to be less prone to file and free space fragmentation than NTFS. When such an fs writes a file, it does some rearranging to file blocks to prevent fragmentation.

That soin theory,heory, but file and free space fragmentation is inevitable even with these file systems.

[Guest teckels]

It is not necessarily a good strategy to cram all data into one section of the drive. What happens when an existing file needs to grow? If it has room to expand, no fragmentation. If it's crammed in with other files...instant fragmentation. Where will this happen? System files like the registry, swap files, game data...etc. In fact, total space consolidation only makes sense if you're planning on saving a file so large it consumes all the free space on the drive. The average small document or system file will hardly be affected.

In my own experience, Diskeeper has been hundreds of times faster than PD, and has much better scheduling options. I have yet to try version 10, however.

That is why PD optomizes file placement. Unlike Diskeeper, PD doesn't run a background service to conststantly monitor file usage. Instead it runs a scheduler that you have control over which will run to perform an analysis of your drives files. Of course the more frequent the analysis the more accurate the information it has to use, so I have mine scheduled to run every other day, and I don't have the overhead of Diskeepers background service.

For those of you that haven't noticed. One of the greatest drawbacks to background defragmentation is the interferance from antivirus applications! When you have a program or a background service that suddenly starts scanning and rearranging all the files on your drive, an antivirus program gets very interested and you should notice a signifigant hit in performance. If you don't believe me, next time you do a manual defrag, wait until after it's started and then disable or kill your antivirus application. You should notice a signifigant increase in your defragmenters performance.

The best argument I can think of for sticking to manual or scheduled only defragmentation. Because if you have a product like Diskeeper that tries to defrag in the background, you will take a performance hit. And unless the makers of Diskeeper have taken the advice I gave them a couple years back (some of which they did, like the screen saver mode) I doubt that they have integrated a feature I sugessted as a "user assignable, do not activate on dection" list. One of my biggest gripes with Diskeeper was that it would start a defragmentation WHENEVER! it didn't matter what I was doing, I could be in the middle of editing a megepixel image and there goes Diskeeper. So I suggested to them that it would be great if DK would simply check running applications before it kicks in, and if one of the programs on the list is running then it should delay launch by a user specified time.

Have they done this? Or how about the other idea of optomizing the registry as part of a boot time optomization. Have they done that? I sent these ideas to the regional sales manager, she forwarded to the head of engineering and she replied to me with his reply..."These are very good ideas, I'll send them to the team and see what happens".

Edited December 11, 2005 by teckels

[Cyber Dog]

I've used the last few versions if DK, and I have never had a problem with it defragmenting "whenever". It was perfectly easy to schedule it to run at a set time, during the screen saver, or manually. As at least one other person mentioned here, DK has arguably better (more powerful) scheduling features than PD...

[Mastertech]

Freespace consolidation does not equal improved performance or reduced fragemtation. The NTFS file system by design leaves space for files to grow. Perfectdisk effectively works against the file system.

All the other Defragmenters waste system resources and time constantly consolidating free space by default. Diskeeper is the only program that by default defragments until disk peformance is optimized. You can select Freespace consolidation if you wish, it was also available in v9. Performance in the end is all anyone cares about.

Neither Registry "optimization" or cleaning for that matter effect performance in anyway.

I would also like to back up the fact that Diskeeper running in the background does NOT effect performance. v9 and v10 include I/O smart which will stop the defragmentation engine should you start accessing the HD. I have AV running and have seen no reduced performance in regards to Diskeeper running in the background. I can testify to this with Avast, Computer Associates, Trend Micro and Norton AV. It is possible other AVs may have a problem but that sounds like a problem with the AV.