Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Different defragmenters discs - variation analysis


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Clade

Clade

  • Members
  • 159 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:08 PM

Posted 21 August 2015 - 08:16 AM

Hi everyone!
 
 Analyzed disks 2, 3 with different software defragmenters said disk, one more native Windows in Windows 7 - 7 32 and 64, respectively, and the observed percentage of fragmentation (%)
 
1. Windows 7-32:
 
Windows Defragmenter: 4.0
 
Wise Disk Cleaner: 2.2
 
Auslogisc Disk Defrag: 6.0
 
Defraggle: 10.0
 
2. Windows 7-64:
 
Windows Defragmenter: 1.0
 
Wise Disk Cleaner: 1.5
 
Auslogisc Disk Defrag: 10.0
 
Defraggle: 23.0
 
Note: Apparently there is a certain proportion compared to both situations, the Auslogisc Disk Defrag and Defraggler.
 
Comments and suggestions are welcome.
 
Grateful to all!


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Platypus

Platypus

  • Moderator
  • 14,000 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:12:08 PM

Posted 21 August 2015 - 08:57 AM

There's not a lot of detailed information around regarding the inner workings of defragmenters - possibly because in many ways it doesn't matter, just defrag the drive. :)

 

But basically it comes down to the way a particular defrag chooses to analyze the statistics. The Windows API provides a defrag analysis, and a defragmenter may choose to use this exclusively or partially. An analysis may be expressed as proportional to the number of files, or the space they occupy on the drive. Also the analysis may include all files, or only the files that can or will be defragmented. The Windows defrag for example doesn't include files that can't currently be defragmented in its calculation, also files in which the fragments are larger than 64MB are disregarded, as the small benefit from consolidating them would be outweighed by the time spent doing it. A defragmenter that is capable of defragging the MFT or pagefile could include them in its statistics.

 

Defraggler is quoted as giving a high reading because it includes restore points - it's claimed that if you delete all these it reports much more like others.


Top 5 things that never get done:

1.


#3 Clade

Clade
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 159 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:08 PM

Posted 22 August 2015 - 07:14 AM

Hi Platypus!
 
Makes sense.. . In the case of Deflagger, after defragmentation, new reading, 17% fragmented. . .
 
Use the Windows defragmenter or third parties?


#4 Platypus

Platypus

  • Moderator
  • 14,000 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:12:08 PM

Posted 22 August 2015 - 07:42 AM

Seems Defraggler reporting 17% is a common complaint. I use the Windows defrag, it's quite good enough and very safe. If I want a fast defrag with an animation, I use Auslogics, but users need to check the install routine for potentially unwanted extras, and disregard the sections of the program that will try to tell you your computer has problems. Also part of the reason Auslogics is fast is that the default is just a file defrag, the other consolidation and optimization that takes longer is in menu options. I'm also starting to forget defrag as I use more SSDs.


Top 5 things that never get done:

1.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users