Jump to content
Posted 21 August 2015 - 08:16 AM
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.
Posted 22 August 2015 - 07:14 AM
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.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users