Definitive Best Defragmenter 2007

[kinetix63 Veteran]

A fresh "Best Defragmenter" poll for 2007. Please use this as a reference when researching Defrag utilities. As time goes on, the poll can be updated to add further options.

Happy voting!

[Edklite]

yes I believe so, what is it with you and auto defrag? nobody needs to defrag more then 4 times a year, are you that lazy or are you the president of the world that has no time to defrag but all day neowin? lol (no disrespect intended here)

picking a defrag tool based on automation capabilities is like picking an anti virus based on automation capabilities, does the quality of the scan itself come to play or just the speed and automation?

you sound like you know what you talking about but sometimes when I read your posts like this it does you no justice. first comes the quality of defrag then automation and all that.

why don't you try O&O then come back, I bet you will love it ;)

[[deXter]]

No, my point is that there should be no reason to do any task manually. We are constantly moving towards automation. With Diskeeper installed, you don't even have to worry about defragging, forget about even manually attempting one.

The point is - there is no performance difference after Diskeeper, PerectDisk or O&O finish a defrag. I'm saying this because I've used most defragmenters available in the market. It makes no difference whether you defrag with Diskeeper, PerfectDisk, O&O, or whatever.

It's nothing like an AntiVirus- AV programs are very different from each other- some specialize in low resource usage, some in catching trojans, some in raw detection, some in heuristics, some in cleaning and so on. But when it comes to defragmentation, there is hardly any difference in a post-defrag performance between various products. Thus, the process of defragmentation itself isn't important. What's important is that a) the drive is defragmented and b) you don't waste any time on it.

[Edklite]

yes and O&O does a better job and I'm not sure where you are getting your standards from but making everything in your life automated is just plain not good.

also I have a hard time listening to others who have not tried something they are talking about, I have tried all 3 and others too, and I know O&O is better, you are assuming, please test O&O then check the results for yourself, I'm sure once you see the results you will agree with me ;)

something 4 times a year does not need automation how lazy can we get?

[[deXter]]

4 times in an year is hardly sufficient for me. I download and surf a lot, and I install/uninstall/test a lot of programs, almost daily.

This causes a lot of fragmentation, so I doubt manually fragmenting 4 times will be sufficient.

I admit, I haven't tried out the latest O&O. I'll try it out, perform comparative tests and will post the results here.

[Edklite]

well how about that, I thought nobody else tested as much software as I do, I work from home so there is no way you are surfing more then I do, as we speak I got opera with 27 tabs open, aside from my/our own forum/site I'm on many other sites also like here. and 4 times a year does great for me, I only have a 60GB hard drive for OS with only 15GB taken at a time, defrag takes minutes even if I had to do it more often, say 8 times a year at 5 minutes each don't' need to be automated ;)

check out O&O, I used to be right were you are at with defrags but listen to me now :laugh: , something changed my mind I bet it will do the same to yours.

[[deXter]]

I work from home too. I have four windows of Opera open with 87 tabs overall. Defragmentation isn't an issue for me, as I use Diskeeper :)

But yes, I'm checking out O&O even as I type this message. Will post the results soon.

[Edklite]

why do you have 4 windows open for? what do you do if you don't mind me asking

[Guest Jeremy of Many]

EDKLite, you are more interested in being correct about your preferred software rather than discovering and providing unbiased information for the masses. I've tried the latest version of most defragmenters and only 4 that I know of have an automation feature:

Diskeeper

MSTDefrag

PerfectDisk

O&O Defrag

Having files defragmented is great, but it doesn't end there. Any defragmenter can take a file split into chunks and glue it together. Why? Because all defragmenters use the built-in Windows API function(s) to do so. What the companies try to sell are the:

File placement methods (last access, last modification)

Scheduling flexibility or automation convenience

All the mumbo jumbo of making your PC perform better than the manufacturer says it can and marketing jibberish is for people born yesterday and/or those new to PC performance/maintenance.

Tests and documentation have been done by pretty much every defrag company, but not necessarily unbiased. Users who want to know unbiased facts have to rely on intelligent and detailed user feedback. Dexter is correct on all points that I read mentioned, except for defragmenting being the finish line. It is important to have file placement.

I used PerfectDisk a year, same as Diskeeper. I've used JKDefrag, AusLogics Disk Defrag as well, but these do not compare to those already mentioned. Automation is nice, but it not for everyone, myself included.

I have 3.5GBs on my C drive, just my OS and program files. Most of that data is on the outermost track where read access is the fastest. The only thing that fragments is my Opera cache and the odd .DAT file here and there.

My storage drive is where the action is. VMware's virtual machine grows in size the more I add to it thus it becomes fragmented. There are many gaps from the beginning of the disk to where my virtual machine is physicall stored megnetically on the disk so when it takes up more space, it finds the first empty space and stores it there. I do not know for a fact that this is how NTFS as a file system is designed to operate, I am relying solely on observation.

I store all my downloads to my storage drive, many images and RARs that require extraction, which are then modified and burnt. After a day's worth, I do my usual cleanup and perform and Consolidation defrag which:

-Defragments the files

-Places everything as outermost as it can be physically

-Makes everything sequential and contiguous

This situation is not exclusive to myself. Many people are the same way. Many people want to know which one is the best, manual vs. automated, etc.

The bottom line is, if you are a busy and lazy person who does a lot, then Diskeeper, or another automated defragger will work for you.

If you're patient and have 15 minutes before bed to play around, then UltimateDefrag, PerfectDisk or another defragger capable of a Consolidation defrag would suit your preference.

Today's HDDs have an 11ms or lower average seek time which, to my knowledge, is the time it takes for the mechanical arm to move from the beginning of the disk to any given file on the HDD. For one file, 8-11ms is unnoticable. For a 300GB drive that is 10% fragmented, you're looking at a few seconds difference in application/game loading times, and perhaps a difference in overal lifespan of your HDD.

I hope my input has helped. Cheers.

[[deXter]]

There are many gaps from the beginning of the disk to where my virtual machine is physicall stored megnetically on the disk so when it takes up more space, it finds the first empty space and stores it there. I do not know for a fact that this is how NTFS as a file system is designed to operate, I am relying solely on observation.

That's how common filesystems work, and that's what causes fragmentation. When a file is being appended, like say a dynamic disk of a virtual machine, the problem comes from the fact that there may already be a file located immediately next to the original file, thus the system has to write it to some other empty space. And if this empty space isn't big enough, then it won't go around searching for a large enough space- doing that will be a waste of time. Thus it'll just lay its hands on whatever space it can get to first, split the file to whatever fits the space and write the other part(s) elsewhere. That's what causes fragmentation. Thats why it's important to have lots of free space so that heavy fragmentation won't occur in the first place.

Thus, ironically, anti-fragmentation methods were never used in NTFS, FAT etc as there would be a performance hit.

Only ReiserFS and ext4 filesystems use techniques to prevent fragmentation.

[Guest Jeremy of Many]

That's how common filesystems work, and that's what causes fragmentation. When a file is being appended, like say a dynamic disk of a virtual machine, the problem comes from the fact that there may already be a file located immediately next to the original file, thus the system has to write it to some other empty space. And if this empty space isn't big enough, then it won't go around searching for a large enough space- doing that will be a waste of time. Thus it'll just lay its hands on whatever space it can get to first, split the file to whatever fits the space and write the other part(s) elsewhere. That's what causes fragmentation. Thats why it's important to have lots of free space so that heavy fragmentation won't occur in the first place.

Thus, ironically, anti-fragmentation methods were never used in NTFS, FAT etc as there would be a performance hit.

Only ReiserFS and ext4 filesystems use techniques to prevent fragmentation.

Yes, I knew most of that already, but thanks for the clarification on how the file system specifically functions. You don't have to work for Microsoft to know how a file system works. I'm glad we are under the same understanding, Dexter. Cheers bud. :)

[Pikey]

Aside from the discussion about which defragger is best, does anyone know of one that displays to the user how many platters there are in the disk??

I often read other posters remarks about putting certain files in certain places on the disk .. inside track, outside track ... this sort of thing, but surely the fact that disks are double sided, and there are usually more than one makes this determination a bit meaningless .. especially given that the normal 'map' in the defragger is just a simple block diagram!! ... whixh is totally misleading as I see it!

[[deXter]]

Aside from the discussion about which defragger is best, does anyone know of one that displays to the user how many platters there are in the disk??

I often read other posters remarks about putting certain files in certain places on the disk .. inside track, outside track ... this sort of thing, but surely the fact that disks are double sided, and there are usually more than one makes this determination a bit meaningless .. especially given that the normal 'map' in the defragger is just a simple block diagram!! ... whixh is totally misleading as I see it!

The number of platters don't matter. Multiple platters on a drive work as if they're a single platter, as the data on a drive is written/read simultaneously on all platters. The head doesn't go writing one platter after the other, it takes place simultaneously.

As you know, a platter is divided into tracks, while a disk is divided into cylinders. A cylinder is nothing but the vertically aligned tracks of all the platters. So a single movement of the read/write head can read from the same track on all platters (ie, cylinder). Infact, when I say I'm reading from track zero, it really means I'm reading from cylinder zero (ie, the first track of all platters).

It's something similar to the concept of Striping in RAID, only, this takes place between the platters in a single disk.

So when you're writing data to the outer rim of a disk, it means that the bits are being evenly split up and written on the same track on all the platters. Thus, for representation purposes, showing a single, circular map makes sense - because, what they're showing is actually the cylinders.

If you want to know how many platters your disk is having, check the number of heads - this will be indicated on the sticker on the drive or in the manual. The number of platters on a disk = Number of heads / 2. So if my HDD has 16 heads, it means I'm having 8 platters. (2 heads for single platter with one on each side)

[Pallab]

In my experience, Perfect Disk is the best (i have tried Diskeeper, O&O and Windows Defragmenter).

[nbtc971]

Is the Windows Defrag any better in Vista?

[soldier1st]

it sucks,sure it is automated but you cant see a graph of the drive.

[ZIPO]

Is there any defragmenter on the market that will defrag only when the hard disk activity idle? What's the use of some screensaver activated defragmentation if the computer is busy at that moment?

Myself not being in the front of the PC doesn't mean that the PC is idle. That's a stupid assumption.

I'm using O&O at the moment mostly because of its interface and defragmentation methods like last accessed/last modified .

[[deXter]]

Is there any defragmenter on the market that will defrag only when the hard disk activity idle? What's the use of some screensaver activated defragmentation if the computer is busy at that moment?

Myself not being in the front of the PC doesn't mean that the PC is idle. That's a stupid assumption.

I'm using O&O at the moment mostly because of its interface and defragmentation methods like last accessed/last modified .

I don't know about the other defragmenters, but Diskeeper's I/O Smart works that way - if the hard disk is too busy, it won't try to defrag.

[ZIPO]

Thanks, I'll download the evaluation version of Diskeeper and see what it can do. I'm noticing that it's got a bunch of patented defragmentation technologies like InvisiTasking?i>I-FAAST?Smart Scheduling???, etc.

Hope they're worth trying. :huh:

[zeroday]

Thanks, I'll download the evaluation version of Diskeeper and see what it can do. I'm noticing that it's got a bunch of patented defragmentation technologies like InvisiTasking?i>I-FAAST?Smart Scheduling???, etc.

Hope they're worth trying. :huh:

I'd recommend Contig first before you try any shareware stuff.

Download Contig here, and then grab the GUI front end for it here. Stick 'em both in the same folder, and you're good to go.

[[deXter]]

I'd recommend Contig first before you try any shareware stuff.

Download Contig here, and then grab the GUI front end for it here. Stick 'em both in the same folder, and you're good to go.

If you read his earlier post, he says he wants a defragmenter that'll defrag only when the harddisk is idle. Contig doesn't do that.

[zeroday]

If you read his earlier post, he says he wants a defragmenter that'll defrag only when the harddisk is idle. Contig doesn't do that.

Whoops, my bad. Sorry :)

[Guest Jeremy of Many]

Thanks, I'll download the evaluation version of Diskeeper and see what it can do. I'm noticing that it's got a bunch of patented defragmentation technologies like InvisiTasking™, I-FAAST™, Smart Scheduling™, etc.

Hope they're worth trying. :huh:

The best thing about Diskeeper is it's automation and resource monitoring. The worst things about it are that it doesn't focus much on file placement. It says it will defragment large files but only to the point where further "optimization" will not benefit performance. Well, it will defragment all the files just fine, but to get the most performance out of all files and your HDD, they have to be placed sequentially and thus contiguously (no gaps in between any two given files). This reduces future fragmentation. Diskeeper doesn't quite get the bigger picture. If it focused as much on file placement as it did defragmentation, everything would be fine.

Several other defragmenters have an automation feature, such as PerfectDisk (although it never worked for me, setting the fragmentation threshold to 0), IOBit (freeware, beta and GUI could use some calming down), O&O Defrag Pro 8.6, MST Defrag, Ashampoo Magical Defrag (doesn't do a very good job, though, GUI sucks, buggy, trialware).

For your particular request, I do recommend Diskeeper. Cheers.

[ZIPO]

Diskeeper has an interesting help file, everything is explained thoroughly. Here is an interesting part where they explain why the free space isn't consolidated during defragmentation:

It is important to know that having all of the free space in a single, contiguous piece provides very little (if any) performance benefit. Free space fragmented into hundreds of pieces will impact disk performance, but free space that?s in a few pieces should not have any effect on the performance of your disk.

**It is a common misconceptionu> that a defragmented disk should look very neat and tidy in the Volume Map tab, 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 volume (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 the next file that you plan to create needs to be one gigantic contiguous file, but it has no effect on performance. In fact, the operating system may or may not write the next file into a contiguous location?even if there is a large enough space.

Very interesting indeed. So what do you people think? Is this what they say true or not?

For example O&O defrag did a great job consolidating free space and the drive graph really looked pretty after defragi:) :)

But unforunatelly O&O keeps defragmenting even if a file is being copied onto a HD or a similar HD intesive process is taking place.

That's why I decided to try Diskeeper. But there are oposite opinions about how the defragmentation should be conducted. Anyone in a mood for discussion?

[john0877]

correct me if im wrong here but with windows indexing everything doesnt NTFS make defragging pretty pointless?

its like looking at the index in a book it tells you what page to go for what chapter. makes you more efficient in finding what chapter you want to go to. now take that away and sure you would benefit from having things in a given order. maybe defrag reduces the amount of head movements and seeks for the files or whatever but i mean how long can it really take when given an index to look at.

i never bother with defragging it takes too long and is largely pointless to me.

[ZIPO]

maybe defrag reduces the amount of head movements and seeks for the files or whatever but i mean how long can it really take when given an index to look at.

That's exactly why I'm doing it. I've noticed a significant improvement when burning files that had previously been defragmented. Also copying large files on a drive with consolidated free space produced better performance in my case. Before free space consolidation, my HD couldn't catch up with DVD drive so the drive would constantly spin up and spin down.

I used to be a nonbeliever when it comes to defragmentation but I have been reverted :yes: