Defragging revisited

[katz]

I've noticed something odd about defraggers. I've used Defraggler, Auslogics Defrag, Windows defrag & a few other programs.

What I've noticed is that these programs (Defraggler, Auslogics Defrag/others) will report that the drive is 30% (or more) fragmented...ok...fine, so I run the program.

After it is completed, it will show a lesser amount of fragmentation, & I will run it again. Six defrags later it is still showing high fragmentation.

These are not the typical "unmovable files" either.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

 

[coffee]

This is what comes to mind off the top of my head:

1. Run a memtest and make sure your memory is not faulty.

2. Run chkdsk and make sure there are no filesystem errors. Alot of times defrag (windows version) will fault out if there is a filesystem error but I dont know about 3rd party stuff.

3. Check the health of the hard drive. Strange things can happen with a faulty controller card or bad sectors.

Other than that I have not really had this problem before.

coffee

 

[katz]

coffee,

Have you used any 3rd party defraggers at all? This seems to be the "norm" for all the systems I work on, of which I usually do run memory diags.& HD tests as well.

I've just completed running "SmartDefrag", which receives high praise in many reviews I read. It ran in half the time of the other pgms., and the result shows a very well defragmented HD.

I may stick with this one.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

You've had a peek at some of their marketing hype...they always over-inflate the amount of fragmentation as a way to try to show that the built in Windows one isn't good.

I haven't really bothered myself with defrag since...the early XP days and going from FAT to NTFS partitions..where it's even less important with NTFS, and also we learned that Windows does it itself....part of the self maintenance.

 

[katz]

You've had a peek at some of their marketing hype...they always over-inflate the amount of fragmentation as a way to try to show that the built in Windows one isn't good.

I haven't really bothered myself with defrag since...the early XP days and going from FAT to NTFS partitions..where it's even less important with NTFS, and also we learned that Windows does it itself....part of the self maintenance.

I hear you Stonecat;

I also question the defrag results/numbers, if they are really that accurate or do the analysis always come back as "super fragmented" to make it look like the pgm. really discovered issues that they can magically "fix".

As far as windows doing it itself; on the systems I see, it's always set to defrag at like 1 a.m.. Either the computer is turned off at that time or is in sleep mode...so the defrag never really runs...does it?

And for the record, I've seen "slower" machines perform better after defragging....no I'm not imagining it, lol.

 

[CLC]

coffee,

Have you used any 3rd party defraggers at all? This seems to be the "norm" for all the systems I work on, of which I usually do run memory diags.& HD tests as well.

I've just completed running "SmartDefrag", which receives high praise in many reviews I read. It ran in half the time of the other pgms., and the result shows a very well defragmented HD.

I may stick with this one.

I agree, smart defrag works well, although the portable version I tried doesn't work well at all. defraggler always show 30 to 50% fragmentation when I run it. I was thinking that was odd so finally I pulled the drive and popped it into my bench pc and it showed no fragmentation, so I've stopped using it.

 

[frederick]

On a Windows 7/8 system, I let windows handle the defragging. I schedule it to always do it when the user has the system on and idle. Same with A/V if the A/V will do this.

Windows XP/Vista, I've been using defraggler, been getting better results (performance) than the windows defrag. I've ran in to you issue before, but it has always been fixed when I update defraggler. I think sometimes these programs do over inflate what the true fragmentation is.

Defragmentation is also not as important as it once was (Windows 7/8), I've noticed on these systems, defragmentation is only needed when the system begins to hit 60%+ used space, and a defrag hasn't been performed in months.

 

[HawkinsPC]

I've noticed this in Defraggler. Look at the particular files. Most times I just delete really old restore points and the percentage will go way down--or even turn off system restore and turn it back on again.

 

[coffee]

coffee,

Have you used any 3rd party defraggers at all?

Sorry Iam late on posting back. Been a bit busy.

I have used Auslogics Disk Defrag 3.4 and seemed to do a good job.

coffee

 

[jbartlett323]

Defragging is always the last step of our tune-up process. After deleting temps, restore points, browser temps, and removing unnecessary programs. I always love how a machine will gradually get faster as the tune-up proceeds. Then we get to the defrag. Last step, so if its still slow by this point (and they usually are) we know defragging will fix it 90% of the time! We use Auslogics Disk Defrag. Cant give you an average % as its all over the board. I have seen xp's at 2% and 7's at 35% and everything in between. But when i'm done, they are always at 0%-1%. No more. Ever. If there is, its because there is a process locking the file. Turn that process off (can usually be identified by what files don't get defragged), reboot, defrag, turn it back on...
Now, all that being said, I do not recommend my user's defrag anymore, unless they are on XP (which does not automatically defrag itself, unless you create and schedule the script yourself) and they already know how. Vista and 7 do a passable job themselves, therefore no more than the occasional tech intervention is needed. But don't try to use Vista and 7's tools manually. Gave up on that when it hung for days on end on more systems than it would complete on...