Printable View
"It seems to be a little better. When you save as BMP, does it take a while for you?"
No mine is fast :)
"After I ran that utlilty, I can no longer open Diskeeper. I know I have the other one but I was checking to see the difference - but now it won't open at all"
Geezzz I wish I had a "This utility is incredible!" that breaks my stuff :rolleyes:
Why do you have Diskeeper ? thought you were getting Perfect Disk ???
I tried Perfect Disk for a while but now it is off my computer. Diskeeper 7 is still my mainstay.
Thanks Conan...just trying it out :) What didn't you like about Perfect Disk ?
I didn't know better than not to like the XP defrag so any help would be much appreciated :)
Diskeeper Pro's:Quote:
Originally posted by FastGame
Thanks Conan...just trying it out :) What didn't you like about Perfect Disk ?
I didn't know better than not to like the XP defrag so any help would be much appreciated :)
Extremely fast (maybe 5 times faster than built-in defrag)
Boot defrag capability
Cons
As claimed by perris leaves spaces in between files sometimes
PerfectDisk Pro's
Suppossedly has file optimization (leaves no spaces between files)
Cons
Slow compared to Diskeeper
No Boot defrag capability
I don't think it's practical to have more than 1 defragmenter for me. The advantage of Perfectdisk doesn't have any measurable effect on my PC.
you're right, perfect disc is slower then any utility that does not have file optimization...it's faster though then any utility that does have file optimization.
perfect disc has an option if you don't want the defrag to take too much time, not to optimize files, and that will speed the process.
as far as boot time defrag...you missed it in the gui, perffect disc has an excellant boottime defrag...it's called "offline defragmentation" (I don't know why they didn't want to call it boot time...big mistake)...it is also the only utility that can defrag meta data, which the other utilities don't even recognize
you just missed that in the gui.
otherwise, I don't mind having a coupla defrag programs, as I'm always testing these things for these guys, but I understand why you wouldn't want more on your box then you need.
just as a by the way... having your your files lay side by side contigously will improve performance at least as much as having the the individual files be contigous, (defragmented)...(which as I said in the first place, is hardly noticeable, and not a worry anyway, unless your drive is about 85% full.)
before anybody asks, Metadata is "data about data." It is the file system overhead, so to speak, that is used to keep track of everything about all of the files on the volume. Metadata tells what allocation units make up the data for a given file, what allocation units are free, what allocation units contain bad sectors, and so on.
in people talk, metadata keeps track ot mtf, (master file table).
hehe...I guess it's kind of funny, because using the same logic, there should then again be a a file system that then keeps track of meta data, and so on.
believe it or not, that's exactly what will happen with the next file system.
you see, ntfs has more information about a file then fat did, in an exponential number, and that is why it's more secure then fat...secure in a file system actually means you won't loose your information in crash or other catastrophy.
and so, fat also has a master file system, but ntfs has so much more, of a master file system that the master file system needs a master file systm...pretty funny
that's what meta data is, and no defragger recognizes it but perfect disc
now, here's the intrigueing part;
of all the files on your harddrive, the only files that microsft actually believe need to be contigous, are the masterfile table, and the metadata...these are the only data that ms believes will affect performance if the are not contigous.
so much so, they designed xp with an "mft zone"
what the zone does, is reserve contigous physical space sequentially from the mft, so that when new mft is added, it is added contigously.
they then put this mft zone in the middle of your information, so that seek times are optimized for the master file table, as this mft is obviously accessed with every activity on the harddrive.
I could go on and on...I love the file system in the nt kernal
ok, I decided to go on and on, I'm getting such a kick out of this.
now, there is so much redundant information about your files with ntfs, that microsft designed the nt kernal to actually repair bad sectors on your hardrive on the fly.
in other words, when the os sees a bad sector, it gathers the information it needs from all the mftm and it puts the information that was once on a bad sector onto a good sector.
on other words, just by accessing files, you are doing a scandisc!!!
this by the way is the reason xo does noyt go into chk dsk when you crash or freeze...amazing oerating system, this nt kernal
That was fun perris , if you would go back a few...http://www.techzonez.com/forums/show...7184#post17184 and explain why PD did this & what efect it may have.
BTW I like reading your kinda stuff....:)
I can't quite fifure out what you're asking.
paste the qoute, and then pose the question, I'll see if I know the answer...I don't have too much time tonight, so maybe tomorrow
[OUOTE]since this is the fragmento thread just want to add that I gave Perfect Disk a try. It sure set my HD different than XP defrag had it. I originally had a static swap of 1gig & it was set at the end of the OS then all my other files were after it. At the start of Perfect Disk the graph showed that I had a small MFT zone plus my swap at the front of disk. After running PD my swap is now moved clean across the HD & I now have a huge MFT.[/OUOTE]
I just want to know why PD moved my static 1gig swap to the far end of HD & increased the size of my MFT zone by 3 fold , as compared to what XP defrag had it set to.
Tomarrow will be fine....Thanks
first of all, you should never have a static pagefile...advice to create a static pagefile in xp is absolutely incorrect, and there is no user that will gain benefit from a static setting, and plenty of users that will trun slower becase of it...but that's another thread..
now, I'm not sure my answer is correct, it's just a guess, as to what happened on your hardrive.
first, perfect disc cannot increase the size of the mft zone...what might have happened is once pd layed the mft zone contigously, you first noticed how big it is...that's my best guess, and it's just a guess.
here's what happens;
the boot files will perfom best at the beginning of the disc, as this is the beginning of activity, and this is where the heads begin the day
next, perfect disc puts your other files where they are trying to go in the microsft scheme of file optimization.
it lays most used files side by side, so the seek time is obviously optimized, and it puts these files towards the middle of your data.
it lays seldom used also side by side, for the same reason before the most accessed files.
when pd did this on your drive, of course, your pagefile had to wind up somwhere other then where it started.
now, here's a another common myth I'm about to dispell.
it's been commonly repeated that the beginning of the disc is the most efficient place on a dreive for often accessed files.
the reasooning used, is that the heads start at the beginning of the disc, so that's the best place for a file to be, as seek times should be shorter.
ha...not true at all
true, the heads start at the beginning of the disc, but that is not where the heads are the majority of the time...the heads are in the center of your most often accesd data the majority of the time...this is the reason micrsoft puts the mft zone towards the center of the drive...in this more optimum position, seek time is improved, and there is a 10 to 15% improvment in performance, according to the miscrosoft research.
so, your pagefile is not the most accessed data on your drive, the mft is, then, the majority of hardrive activity will come from your most comonly accessed files, and then the pagefile.
all by the way,is just hypothisizing on my part, (except the part about seek times being optimized in the middle of your data, and not at the beginning of the disc...that part is fact)