# How to defrag a HDD properly



## Mussels (Apr 13, 2010)

This is a work in progress - this first post will be edited a loooot in the coming hours.

*
Briefly discuss what fragmentation is*
Think of files on your drive, as one big long string of words on pages. If those words were out of order (words if those order of out were), you can still get them right if you know where to find them and put them back in order/make sense of them, but it takes longer. Now imagine if the LETTERS were out of order too.

Defragmenting is simply putting them back in order - but there are many ways of doing so.
Below is a list of various methods that don't just defragment - they relocate the files for better performance, too.

*Describe various methods of HDD Defragmentation*

Fragmented files only
This is making sure each file is in one piece. Instead of the words out of order analogy above, think of this as making sure the letters in each word are in the right order. Each word in a sentence may be in very different locations, but at least the words are in one piece. _This is what most quick defraggers (and operating systems) use_

By name/Alphabetical order
Simple really - this doesnt just defrag, it sorts the files too. ALl the files in C:\windows are physically near each other, so its quicker to load lots of them at once - less time is wasted moving between them (think all your pages are stapled together in order in a book, not just numbered in a random pile)

Recently used
an odd one, for servers only really. This method puts files most recently used at the start of your drive/partition (fastest area), and your least used ones at the back.
This may work well in some situations, but it has two downsides: if your patterns of usage change, a defrag will have to move every file to its new location, taking a long time to defrag.
I recommend this only for drives where the contents don't change often.


High/Low performance mode (Ultimate defrag only)
Labelled "performance" and "archive" in Ultimate defrag, its got a mode where you can choose files to go at the start of the drive (performance) and files to go at the back (archive) with everything else fitting in the middle.
My MP3 collection doesnt need to load fast, but my 300GB of games does:
(for reference, i use folder/file name (aka alphabetical order) + manually selecting low/high performance folders)







purple is my games/steam folders, blue is random crap, green is my MP3's and installers/game patches. For those who dont know, the outer edges of a disk are faster than the inner edges - therefore, my games are now loading faster than my MP3's.

*background/scheduled/idle defraggers

*Guide for how to set up ultimate defrag to defrag your files properly*
Select the drive you want to defrag at the top. hit the big yellow options button
tick custom on high performance and archive, and pick the folders you want.





Kinda obvious what i want sped up on my games partition. Follow the same procedure for your 'archive' folders.


Select the method you want, hit the small blue 'options' button - set it as following.





hit start and go... the more often you do it, the quicker subsequent times will take. If you dont change the files on the drive much, defrags will be very quick.


*discuss how often one should defrag*

This varies so much. i went 6 months without defragging and didnt even notice any slowdown, except on boot times. Once OS had booted, i didnt notice anything. Thats because in my case, only my C: drive fragments, and i keep very little on there.

*Discuss methods to reduce fragmentation*

*Partition!* your OS will fragment constantly, your games drives only when you install/delete stuff, and storage drives generally wont fragment ever.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 13, 2010)

post reserved in case i need it.


----------



## ObSo-1337 (Apr 13, 2010)

Very nice, im trying this software as we speak ;D


----------



## RaPiDo987 (Apr 13, 2010)

ObSo-1337 said:


> Very nice, im trying this software as we speak ;D



Where is the software link?? LOL!


----------



## Mussels (Apr 13, 2010)

RaPiDo987 said:


> Where is the software link?? LOL!



if you mean ultimate defrag, google it. there is an outdated free version, and a trial/paid version of the full software.


----------



## Altered (Apr 13, 2010)

Nice post Mussels.


----------



## Hockster (Apr 13, 2010)

I've been using PerfectDisk for years. I find it to be extremely effective.
http://www.perfectdisk.com/


----------



## RaPiDo987 (Apr 13, 2010)

Mussels said:


> if you mean ultimate defrag, google it. there is an outdated free version, and a trial/paid version of the full software.



Oh, I thought it was a program you created...  

Thanks yor the post though!


----------



## Mussels (Apr 13, 2010)

RaPiDo987 said:


> Oh, I thought it was a program you created...
> 
> Thanks yor the post though!



naw, i cant program my way out of a paper bag.

just occured to me that its an overlooked part of everyday PC use, and so many weird ideas/myths/misinformation floating around.


----------



## Conflict0s (Apr 13, 2010)

I will have a read of this later, looks interesting. Thanks for posting.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Apr 13, 2010)

nice one mussels i got the trial version to test it out it improved my loading times in Oblivion The Witcher and crysis by a decent amount


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 13, 2010)

Can you suggest cheap(ie free) defragging tool that is better than the one supplied with Windows for El Cheapo like me? Thanks in advance for your time.


----------



## copenhagen69 (Apr 13, 2010)

would be even better if it was free ... i may buy a lot of stuff .. but defragging software will not be one of them


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Apr 13, 2010)

read the OP you can get the older version FOR free and the new version is a 14 day trial now if your smart and use a 2ndary drive etc you can install all your data and then use the 14 day trial to organize it after that your set  its what im doing right now.


----------



## copenhagen69 (Apr 13, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> read the OP you can get the older version FOR free and the new version is a 14 day trial now if your smart and use a 2ndary drive etc you can install all your data and then use the 14 day trial to organize it after that your set  its what im doing right now.



i read it .. why would you want old versions 



yes I know I am being difficult 

Trying out the 14 day trial though ... and at least the GUI looks pretty sweet with the circle


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Apr 13, 2010)

well i run about 90+ mods in oblivion saw my load times drop by around 12-13 seconds  Crysis load times dropped around 20 seconds. granted apparently when installed my games were put on the inner edge of the disc but after configuring UD properly it was a very very nice increase hell my oblivion mods add about 9gigs of extra data to the Oblivion data folder so this was awesome for me it also helped raise my overall FPS surprisingly


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 13, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> read the OP you can get the older version FOR free and the new version is a 14 day trial now if your smart and use a 2ndary drive etc you can install all your data and then use the 14 day trial to organize it after that your set  its what im doing right now.



Ah, I see it now, I must have missed it due to the massive post.


----------



## Delta6326 (Apr 13, 2010)

yummmy purple pie, i will try out this prog


----------



## AsRock (Apr 13, 2010)

there going release a new version soon accourding to a email i got 2 days ago.  The payed version is for sure better than the free version.

I believe they still have the offer that if you buy the older version they will update you to the  newer version when it actually gets released.

Might try the newer one out when it comes out but will not be much need for it after tomorrow as i should have my SSDs here and be running the other drives as storage.

They BS'ed there way though the months with me kinda pissed that they still did not sort out the x64 issue out and just kept saying to me any day now BS.


----------



## ASRockIQ (Apr 13, 2010)

i use Defraggler more then anything people suggest me


----------



## Dyno (Apr 13, 2010)

I don't think defragging on Vista or Windows 7 would make much of a difference. Something is definitely different with Vista/Windows 7 compared to XP. I'm running PerfectDisk 11 and that's all you need. Another thing, don't defrag if you're running SSD, no need too.

"Why not to defrag SSD"
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Why+not+to+defrag+SSD&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=bcdf8cbbf06dc4f


----------



## LifeOnMars (Apr 14, 2010)

There you go Mussels, I knew this thread would be a roaring success  Thanks for following up on it, will be invaluable for noobs and even a few experienced users I'm guessing.


----------



## ShRoOmAlIsTiC (Apr 14, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> Can you suggest cheap(ie free) defragging tool that is better than the one supplied with Windows for El Cheapo like me? Thanks in advance for your time.



I used mydefrag,  its free and easy to use.  it doesnt have all the options as ultimate defrag but it works great.

http://www.mydefrag.com/


----------



## 95Viper (Apr 14, 2010)

Auslogics Disk Defrag 3.1.4.110 freeware for home users.

Latest Version:  3.1.4.110 (version history) 
File size:  2.16 MB
Support Version:  Windows 7 / Vista / 2008 / XP (32-bit & 64-bit)
Release Date:  April 13, 2010



Edit: Auslogics FAQ page

These are also, free,

Puran Defrag Software
IOBit Smart Defrag
ULTRADEFRAG An Open Source Defragmenter
MyDefrag v4.2.94.2.9

Edit edit:  Also, make sure your defragger can handle volume shadow copies and boot time defrags...nice extras.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Apr 14, 2010)

well i like UD it actually improved my loading times in games even tho auslogic fraggler etc said there was no defragmentation etc

ran UD it said there was 25% defragmentation did some tweaking on locations and my system now runs faster then i ever remember it even after a fresh install


----------



## jagd (Apr 14, 2010)

A lot of good free defragmenter linked i think ,ill add http://www.piriform.com/defraggler



Fourstaff said:


> Can you suggest cheap(ie free) defragging tool that is better than the one supplied with Windows for El Cheapo like me? Thanks in advance for your time.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 14, 2010)

Dyno said:


> I don't think defragging on Vista or Windows 7 would make much of a difference. Something is definitely different with Vista/Windows 7 compared to XP. I'm running PerfectDisk 11 and that's all you need. Another thing, don't defrag if you're running SSD, no need too.
> 
> "Why not to defrag SSD"
> http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Why+not+to+defrag+SSD&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=bcdf8cbbf06dc4f



vista and 7 automatically schedule defrags when you arent watching. thats why its not as 'neccesary' any more. 
Fragmented -> defragmented = faster
Defragmented -> sorted = faster again
superfetch helps too, but as we've just been told - losing 10-15s off load times in a large game is totally worth the effort.


all these free defraggers only do the 'fragmented files' method, as i listed in the first post. read the differences in the methods carefully, and you'll see WHY you want a proper defragger.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Apr 14, 2010)

agreed mussels  i love the time saved in crysis and other games i seriously think if im saving 5-15 minutes a day off my LOADING times thats just awesome


----------



## Stearic (Apr 14, 2010)

If you use Adobe CS4 suite, you'll appreciate the directory consolidation/sorting in addition to defragging; it definitely improves the Bridge thumbnail extraction/preview times for folders with large numbers of RAW files. A defragged drive with directories consolidated is much easier to work with than a fragmented one. The Diskeeper version I use has auto-everything lol...auto directory consolidation as well as auto sequencing/placement based on _ frequency of access_. You can also manually specify files/folders for placement but it's not recommended for some reason.

Don't quote me on this, but I think DK's i-faast benchmarks the file system to find out the fastest logical blocks (since logical block does not always correspond to the physical block) to use for most frequently used files.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Apr 14, 2010)

I've heard a lot of good things about JK defrag. It's free and has all the optimization options. However it is console based and you need to learn all the commands first. I'm personally pretty happy with defraggler - simple and fast.

Edit: Apparently they've renamed the project to mydefrag  and have added a GUI


----------



## LifeOnMars (Apr 15, 2010)

How would I put my Windows 7 in a partition? Never done that sort of thing before but would be interested to try it along with this defragging method. Any help would be appreciated


----------



## Mussels (Apr 16, 2010)

LifeOnMars said:


> How would I put my Windows 7 in a partition? Never done that sort of thing before but would be interested to try it along with this defragging method. Any help would be appreciated



you have to do it when you install windows.


----------



## AsRock (Apr 16, 2010)

Mussels said:


> you have to do it when you install windows.



Not 100% true( Does increase your chances though ) as i did it when i got my laptop.  Although i did defrag it to make sure as many files as possible were at the start of the disk 1st.

Then it was as simple as using disk management and right clicking HDD and resizing it.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 16, 2010)

AsRock said:


> Not 100% true as i did it when i got my laptop.  Although i did defrag it to make sure as many files as possible were at the start of the disk 1st.
> 
> Then it was as simple as using disk management and right clicking HDD and resizing it.



i dont trust disk management resizing, i always end up with a corrupted drive.


----------



## AsRock (Apr 16, 2010)

Mussels said:


> i dont trust disk management resizing, i always end up with a corrupted drive.



Yes i could happen but can happen with any software.  Funny though it never happened to me with Vista or win7.  It is rare i do it though and when i do i backup every thing 1st which your supposed to anyways.


----------



## Melvis (Apr 16, 2010)

Very nice Mussels, good stuff.

I have all my games on a separate HDD so there for just a normal defrag would be good enough for this?

Same with my OS and storage drive there all on different HDD's.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 16, 2010)

Melvis said:


> Very nice Mussels, good stuff.
> 
> I have all my games on a separate HDD so there for just a normal defrag would be good enough for this?
> 
> Same with my OS and storage drive there all on different HDD's.



*definitely* do a name based defrag on the games drive.


----------



## BazookaJoe (Apr 16, 2010)

Here's a question : I KNOW why most all defraggers use the "safe" / Non-Volatile method of Read->Write->Clear->Read->Write->Delete  So lets not waste time discussing that, What I want to know is - are there any defragmenters that use RAM to perform VOLATILE defragmentation?

The thing is, I have some large and severely backed up drives that get fragmented rather quickly, defragmenting them is a MAJOR problem as it takes a ffking AGE AND A HALF, and interferes with operation (Again lets not waste time discussing WHY lets just work on the actual question) 

Now If it was defragmenting by caching directly to ram between the read-write of the move mathematically it would complete 60%+ faster and I KNOW this because I once HAD a very primitive defragmernter for DOS/Win98 that did this, and it was actually FASTER than 60% faster.

YES the move is volatile and if the power fails waah waah waah... but I don't care, the drives are hell'a backed up AND even if not I'd be more than happy to risk it what with my UPS's and so on.

So to wrap up all my blather : Does anyone know of a defrag app that can perform RAM cached / VOLATILE defragmentation? (For Win7-64 and so on?), and save me a huge pile of time....


----------



## Mussels (Apr 16, 2010)

no, none do that method. too risky.

just use a proper defragger (that uses the same organised method each time) and subsequent defrags will be much quicker.


----------



## Melvis (Apr 16, 2010)

Mussels said:


> *definitely* do a name based defrag on the games drive.



Do i tick any of the boxes under the Folder/File options?

or just select Folder/File name and start the defrag?


----------



## Mussels (Apr 16, 2010)

Melvis said:


> Do i tick any of the boxes under the Folder/File options?
> 
> or just select Folder/File name and start the defrag?



depends if you want to sort them - i suggest doing as i show in the OP (theres pictures!), and pick folders for high and low performance.


----------



## BazookaJoe (Apr 16, 2010)

Mussels said:


> no, none do that method. too risky.
> 
> just use a proper defragger (that uses the same organised method each time) and subsequent defrags will be much quicker.



AAGH - what part of I'm already doing that and its not acceptable and I don't care about the risk as it is utterly void between the backup drives and the UPS's did you miss?

(Said playfully - not bitchfully like it sounds)

Its a couple of 2TB drives that are like 80% full of THOUSANDS of files that all change in size on a daily basis, believe me there is no QUICK defrag ever...

I know I may be Splat out of luck on this front, but there must be somebody somwhere that has seen one?


----------



## Mussels (Apr 16, 2010)

BazookaJoe said:


> AAGH - what part of I'm already doing that and its not acceptable and I don't care about the risk as it is utterly void between the backup drives and the UPS's did you miss?
> 
> (Said playfully - not bitchfully like it sounds)
> 
> ...



you're asking about something so unwanted, that you're gunna hafta code it yourself


----------



## BazookaJoe (Apr 16, 2010)

Mussels said:


> you're asking about something so unwanted, that you're gunna hafta code it yourself



Sounds like a challenge! 

Heh - naah.. I was once a mighty force back in the days of 16Bit, but I'm too old for such levels of hackery today... Damn object oriented BS! Get off mah lawn!! *waves walker in the air*


----------



## overclocking101 (Jul 1, 2010)

so this should seriously be stickied. and for some reason it leaves my disk 6.14% fragmented, its killing me! i can figure out how to select the fragmented files and defrag them, maybe someone can help me


----------



## 95Viper (Jul 1, 2010)

Have you tries a boot time defrag.  That 6.14% might be MFT, system, volumes shadow copy files, page and other files that are lock while in the OS.

If your software has an option for boot time defrag of those files use that...

Or, you can try this:Puran Defrag Free Edition 7.1

Main Features Include - 

Puran Intelligent Optimizer - PIOZR 
Directories Consolidation for speed boost 
Optimization by Freeing Space 
Automatic Defragmentation for worry free defrag 
Boot Time Defragmentation for system files like MFT 
Low Priority Defrag for work while defrag experience 
Individual File/Folder Defrag for selective defrag 
GUI and Console Command Line Defrag Supported 
Restart/Shutdown After Boot Time Defragmentation 
File/Folder Exclusion or exclusion by wildcard facility 
File Deletion or deletion by wildcard facility 
Native support for 64Bit Windows 
Supports Windows Xp/2003/Vista/2008/7


----------



## Mussels (Jul 1, 2010)

overclocking101 said:


> so this should seriously be stickied. and for some reason it leaves my disk 6.14% fragmented, its killing me! i can figure out how to select the fragmented files and defrag them, maybe someone can help me



like viper said, those are quite likely to be files that are 'in use' - you cant defrag em.


The only way to get everything defragged properly is to move the drive to another machine and defrag it there, or use a boot time defragger (which i have little experience with, as most dont work with x64 OS)


----------



## AsRock (Jul 1, 2010)

Mussels said:


> like viper said, those are quite likely to be files that are 'in use' - you cant defrag em.
> 
> 
> The only way to get everything defragged properly is to move the drive to another machine and defrag it there, or use a boot time defragger (which i have little experience with, as most dont work with x64 OS)



Or dual boot from one OS to the other .


----------



## Mussels (Jul 1, 2010)

AsRock said:


> Or dual boot from one OS to the other .



as long as its on another hard drive, sure.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jul 1, 2010)

I wonder how would this piece of software display my triple-platter drives.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 1, 2010)

Just the same as any other. This is not a graphical representation of a single platter anyway...


----------



## Mussels (Jul 1, 2010)

pr0n Inspector said:


> I wonder how would this piece of software display my triple-platter drives.



yeah it doesnt really show the platters of each drive - the point is that even on a quad platter drive, it still uses the outer rings first (it doesnt fill one platter and move to the next) so its accurate still.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jul 1, 2010)

Mussels said:


> yeah it doesnt really show the platters of each drive - the point is that even on a quad platter drive, it still uses the outer rings first (it doesnt fill one platter and move to the next) so its accurate still.


So you are saying you know for a fact that all drives operate "stack by stack"?


----------



## Mussels (Jul 1, 2010)

pr0n Inspector said:


> So you are saying you know for a fact that all drives operate "stack by stack"?



yes. otherwise it would go fast -> slow -> fast -> slow in benchmarks like HDtach and HDtune, when its a linear decrease.

it does one sector on platter one, then a sector on platter 2, and so on. they all spin in sync at the same time (they do not spin independently, and the arms move as one) so it pretty much has to be that way.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jul 1, 2010)

Mussels said:


> yes. otherwise it would go fast -> slow -> fast -> slow in benchmarks like HDtach and HDtune, when its a linear decrease.
> 
> it does one sector on platter one, then a sector on platter 2, and so on. they all spin in sync at the same time (they do not spin independently, and the arms move as one) so it pretty much has to be that way.


Except it's next to impossible to align the heads so precisely that they are always on the same track, especially not on today's high density platters. AND, benchmark tools always show a zip zag pattern that clearly indicates the head on a particular platter remains active for some time before switching to the next.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 1, 2010)

pr0n Inspector said:


> Except it's next to impossible to align the heads so precisely that they are always on the same track, especially not on today's high density platters. AND, benchmark tools always show a zip zag pattern that clearly indicates the head on a particular platter remains active for some time before switching to the next.



i never said they were lined up perfectly and accessed simultaneously - i'm just sayin that they're working in tandem, not independantly. so yes, they're definitely worrking from the outside in, at the same time and not filling the drive up one platter at a time.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 1, 2010)

pr0n Inspector said:


> Except it's next to impossible to align the heads so precisely that they are always on the same track, especially not on today's high density platters. AND, benchmark tools always show a zip zag pattern that clearly indicates the head on a particular platter remains active for some time before switching to the next.



Zig zag pattern happens because of the seeking. 15ms delay between each seek (depending on distance) and not fully linear read and you get that zig zag patter.
Ever wonder why SSD drives usually have very straight line, usually perfectly horizontal with minimal deviations? Because their seek time is usually below 0.5ms, reading is not bound to physical rotation of the platters etc.


----------



## freaksavior (Jul 1, 2010)

Thanks mussels. Any idea how long 2.7 tb will take?


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jul 1, 2010)

Why is the free trial (ie the latest version) labelled 2008


----------



## erocker (Jul 1, 2010)

I use the defrag in Windows. Always have and do it about once a month. I've never experienced loss in performance or otherwise. Even works with RAID. That's how I properly do it.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 1, 2010)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Why is the free trial (ie the latest version) labelled 2008



Because doing a new version just taking a little time though.
http://www.disktrix.com/DT_News.htm


----------



## garyinhere (Jul 1, 2010)

I use auslogic defrag... i'm very OCD so i'm gonna give this one a try!


----------



## F1reFly (Jul 2, 2010)

SSD ftw. yay no defrags


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 2, 2010)

I'd recommend sticking with the windows 7 default program until the updated version comes out. Here's a link for command line options for better control http://www.winhelponline.com/blog/new-defrag-cmd-line-parameters-windows-7/

Good blog post for understanding defrag in windows 7 http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/...d-engineering-the-windows-7-improvements.aspx


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jul 2, 2010)

RejZoR said:


> Zig zag pattern happens because of the seeking. 15ms delay between each seek (depending on distance) and not fully linear read and you get that zig zag patter.
> Ever wonder why SSD drives usually have very straight line, usually perfectly horizontal with minimal deviations? Because their seek time is usually below 0.5ms, reading is not bound to physical rotation of the platters etc.



We are talking about throughput benchmarks here.
Since heads are not aligned perfectly nor is the arm bearing completely without play, heads aren't always on the same track. if the heads are only moving say one track before going to the next platter, the heads never really seeks but merely "vibrates" locally(and moves linearly on a larger scale) due to the extremely small difference of head positions.
However if the heads are moving 1000 tracks before going to the next platter, it could result in a "fast -> slow -> fast -> slow" pattern that is visible even in a very coarse-grained scale like the one in HDtune.


----------



## DaveK (Jul 3, 2010)

This might take awhile...







I use Defraggler, and while it has options to archive large files like RARs, ISOs and movies, I think it put them on the outside of the drive, as I ran it with that option earlier and well, you can see the where the green is...


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 3, 2010)

I just have Vista defrag scheduled and it does it's job just fine. Using Defraggler on netbook with WinXP...


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jul 3, 2010)

New features in UltimateDefrag Version 3




> 7. Ability to defrag *external USB drives including flash drives.*




This is gold.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 3, 2010)

DaveK said:


> This might take awhile...
> 
> http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/davidkinsella/Untitled.jpg?t=1278141239
> 
> I use Defraggler, and while it has options to archive large files like RARs, ISOs and movies, I think it put them on the outside of the drive, as I ran it with that option earlier and well, you can see the where the green is...



At a guess the red outa are un movable files and the large red is system restore.  You can click the within the circle so it tells you the files that have not been moved.  The system restore ones are in brackets with a load of gibberish.



pr0n Inspector said:


> New features in UltimateDefrag Version 3
> 
> This is gold.




Just posted that a few posts up . They better hurry up with it already before everyone has SSD's lol.


----------



## overclocking101 (Jul 3, 2010)

I really dig the ultimate defrag, I can move files anywhere I need/want them to be. though I really havent had to yet but Am going to migrate all my files soon.


----------



## shevanel (Jul 6, 2010)

Thanks for the informative post!

I've started using this method to defrag now but I want to ask, besides games folders what are other windows folders that should be done under performance mode to help with the overall OS experience?


----------



## Mussels (Jul 7, 2010)

shevanel said:


> Thanks for the informative post!
> 
> I've started using this method to defrag now but I want to ask, besides games folders what are other windows folders that should be done under performance mode to help with the overall OS experience?



IMO, its less important to send stuff to the front, than it is to send stuff to the back. MP3's, backups, rar/zip files, etc. get them at the back and everything else ends up at the front.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jul 9, 2010)

Im running the newest version of Ultimate Defrag, can some one tell me what I need to check off in the auto mode? It's just the primary drive I want defraged but some settings are throwing me off.

Thanks


----------



## fullinfusion (Jul 10, 2010)

I have no Idea what im doing with this program... this is what I set things to in auto mode..

Is this the rite way or not?


----------



## fullinfusion (Jul 10, 2010)

Where is the help?

Ok, Please help lol

this is bugging me bad ppl...


----------



## Mussels (Jul 10, 2010)

fullinfusion said:


> Where is the help?
> 
> Ok, Please help lol
> 
> this is bugging me bad ppl...



i have a step by step guide - with pictures - in the first post


----------



## fullinfusion (Jul 10, 2010)

I seen that Mussles and thank you, But I just need to know what every setting I need to click just to do a regular Defrag on my main drive.

My game drive is optimized but the OS drive I cant make any sense of all the settings.


----------



## shevanel (Sep 3, 2010)

question, should all the windows folder be done through high performance like you do with games?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 3, 2010)

shevanel said:


> question, should all the windows folder be done through high performance like you do with games?



IMO yes, but then again IMO, you should have windows on another partition, or physical drive to your games.


----------



## shevanel (Sep 3, 2010)

I have had this U defrag working great one time but the last two machines I have put it on I have had some issues.. It says "moving closer to MTF" or something like that and it just stays there for hours...

I need to get a new hdd for this laptop.. this 5400RPM is ridiculously slow.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 3, 2010)

i've had the same bug with that, uncheck the box about moving directories close to the MFT and it stops happening.


----------



## shevanel (Sep 3, 2010)

I'm going to use auslogics until I reinstall 7 and split my partions and/or upgrade this hdd ..


----------



## shevanel (Sep 3, 2010)

Mussels said:


> i've had the same bug with that, uncheck the box about moving directories close to the MFT and it stops happening.



that box was already un ticked...


----------



## CJCerny (Sep 3, 2010)

shevanel said:


> I have had this U defrag working great one time but the last two machines I have put it on I have had some issues.. It says "moving closer to MTF" or something like that and it just stays there for hours...
> 
> I need to get a new hdd for this laptop.. this 5400RPM is ridiculously slow.



Seagate Momentus XT


----------



## theubersmurf (Sep 4, 2010)

The application was worth buying (for me), thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 4, 2010)

You need just two freeware tools. CCleaner and Defraggler. First one is used to clean the junk which makes the work of the second tool Defraggler much easier and effective.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 4, 2010)

RejZoR said:


> You need just two freeware tools. CCleaner and Defraggler. First one is used to clean the junk which makes the work of the second tool Defraggler much easier and effective.



defraggler is a very basic defragger, none of the advanced options.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 4, 2010)

I've never had an issue with defragger. Its slow on degragging restore files however. Other then that its great.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 4, 2010)

yeah, but as i've said a few times in this thread: there is a big differnce between defragging fragmented files, and reorganising them/your MFT for better performance.

if you have all files within your games folder located physically next to each other, seek times are cut back - whereas they could be 'defragmented' but having 1000 files scattered all over the drive, it still takes time to locate and read them all.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 4, 2010)

Mussels said:


> yeah, but as i've said a few times in this thread: there is a big differnce between defragging fragmented files, and reorganising them/your MFT for better performance.
> 
> if you have all files within your games folder located physically next to each other, seek times are cut back - whereas they could be 'defragmented' but having 1000 files scattered all over the drive, it still takes time to locate and read them all.



Ok but your talking nano seconds here. Not worth the price of the software.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 4, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ok but your talking nano seconds here. Not worth the price of the software.



... no.

HDD seek time is in milliseconds, if your drive averages 12 milliseconds, thats 12 milliseconds per file it has to find.


as an example, my company of heroes folder has 536 files.







if it had to go seeking through even half of those, thats an extra 3 seconds on whatever its doing (probably, loading the game/map etc) on top of how long it takes due to the files size (throughput). thats normal, if they're in sequential order.

my estimation (12ms times 250 files) assumes that they're still in sequential order on the disk (sequential read), if they're scattered all to hell that could go well higher. i'll try and find a normal reading for random reads vs sequential.






according to everest, its almost double - so instead of being 3 seconds, its 6. if your game takes 20 seconds to load, it could be halved to 10s, being placed sequentially, as opposed to randomly - even if fully defragged.


is it going to make a large difference? depends on the game, and how many files it has (and how badly they're scattered)


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 4, 2010)

Mussels said:


> yeah, but as i've said a few times in this thread: there is a big differnce between defragging fragmented files, and reorganising them/your MFT for better performance.
> 
> if you have all files within your games folder located physically next to each other, seek times are cut back - whereas they could be 'defragmented' but having 1000 files scattered all over the drive, it still takes time to locate and read them all.



Actually that's not entirely true. And Defraggler does that as well. It's called defragmentation and consolidation. Pretty much all programs do it these days. First stage makes sure files are in fact consisting of 1 fragment (so they aren't actually fragmented). Then it makes sure they are packed together so there isn't any free space in between and that files from same folders are also located together. MFT fragmentation is problematic to some degree, however it is only related to a seek position of the file inside the file system. It's not big either so unless it's in like 50.000 fragments, it shouldn't cause any noticeable slowdowns. It's much more problematic having files physically scattered across the drive, meaning the read/write head will have to travel large distances between physical locations.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 4, 2010)

i did a big edit to the post above, rejzor. had some of it in the wrong order.

consolidation is not the same as reordering the files, thats merely compacting all the data towards the start of the disk. Udefrag can sort by folder name (so all files in D:\games\Starcraft II\ are physically near each other, which is far superior to merely being randomly shoved as close as possible to the start of the drive.

If you can find me details on defraggler actually sorting them properly, then by all means - thats great.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 4, 2010)

Mussels said:


> ... no.
> 
> HDD seek time is in milliseconds, if your drive averages 12 milliseconds, thats 12 milliseconds per file it has to find.
> 
> ...



That doesnt hold water. That means it would take a grand total of 3 second to load 50% of the files. 

First off most game do not load 50% of the total files at one single time during gameplay.
Second if it did it would only take the total of the "3 seconds" to load. Big deal. 3 seconds vs 2.5 seconds.

Edit: Time in half? I HIGHLY doubt that.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 4, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> That doesnt hold water. That means it would take a grand total of 3 second to load 50% of the files.
> 
> First off most game do not load 50% of the total files at one single time during gameplay.
> Second if it did it would only take the total of the "3 seconds" to load. Big deal. 3 seconds vs 2.5 seconds.



no, its 3s of seek time, added on to the time it takes for the data.

if it takes 20s to move 5GB, then its going to take 23s due to the delays from seeking (20S for a 5GB single file, as opposed to 23s for 5GB in 250 files)


if you dont beleive me, find a collection you have with large amounts of small files. try moving it somewhere, and then raring or zipping them and moving that. the compressed file always goes quicker, since there is only one file (and if its defragmented) - no seeking to worry about.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 4, 2010)

Mussels said:


> no, its 3s of seek time, added on to the time it takes for the data.
> 
> if it takes 20s to move 5GB, then its going to take 23s due to the delays from seeking (20S for a 5GB single file, as opposed to 23s for 5GB in 250 files)



Ok 23 seconds vs 22.5 seconds. Really you think thats worth buying the software?



Mussels said:


> if you dont beleive me, find a collection you have with large amounts of small files. try moving it somewhere, and then raring or zipping them and moving that. the compressed file always goes quicker, since there is only one file (and if its defragmented) - no seeking to worry about.



Thats consolidation. Defrags don't work like that.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 4, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ok 23 seconds vs 22.5 seconds. Really you think thats worth buying the software?



where'd you get that number from?

with the example i gave above, its 3 vs 6 seconds. I also clearly stated that a game with more loose files would be slower.






How about that? could save you 10-15 seconds of loading time.


if its WORTH it, is up to you... but since you defrag in the first place, dont you ALREADY think its worth it?

i've already pointed out some of your misconceptions (thinking it was in nanoseconds) so please, look into your HDD - its random vs sequential read speeds in MB/s, as well as its access times, the amount of files in the games you play and do the math yourself. if the math shows you'll save an amount of time you care about, then its worth it - and if its not, its not.

in my case, waiting around for games to load bores me to death - so yes, it matters to me. i didnt buy a hexa core and a 5870 to sit staring at loading screens.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 4, 2010)

Mussels said:


> where'd you get that number from?
> 
> with the example i gave above, its 3 vs 6 seconds. I also clearly stated that a game with more loose files would be slower.
> 
> ...



I put "nano seconds" as an exaggeration. Anyway what you are saying is if the over all load time is 30 seconds I could get it down to 15 seconds? 50% reduction by reorganizing the files?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 4, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I put "nano seconds" as an exaggeration. Anyway what you are saying is if the over all load time is 30 seconds I could get it down to 15 seconds? 50% reduction by reorganizing the files?



it varies really, since i have no way of knowing how many files the game actually loads, i cant give you accurate figures.

is a 15s reduction possible? yes. but its certainly not going to happen in every game, only the big ones with hundreds (or thousands) of files.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 4, 2010)

Mussels said:


> it varies really, since i have no way of knowing how many files the game actually loads, i cant give you accurate figures.
> 
> is a 15s reduction possible? yes. but its certainly not going to happen in every game, only the big ones with hundreds (or thousands) of files.



You are talking about a 50% reduction in load time man. Think about that. I'm not saying you are wrong about the load reduction. I just think you might see a 10% improvement at best.


----------



## AsRock (Sep 4, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You are talking about a 50% reduction in load time man. Think about that. I'm not saying you are wrong about the load reduction. I just think you might see a 10% improvement at best.



I'll take that 10% any day even more with games like GTA 4.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 5, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You are talking about a 50% reduction in load time man. Think about that. I'm not saying you are wrong about the load reduction. I just think you might see a 10% improvement at best.



my opinion is at least backed up with specific info and math, whereas yours is opinion and feeling.


as asrock said (and i've said, many times) it all comes down to the game.

the program has a bloody free trial, test it for yourself!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 5, 2010)

Mussels said:


> my opinion is at least backed up with specific info and math, whereas yours is opinion and feeling.
> 
> 
> as asrock said (and i've said, many times) it all comes down to the game.
> ...



Don't get pissy my little kangaroo rapist. I'm trying to figure this out. I am using math also but I am trying to figure out the real benefit. So this is how it goes, please tell me if I am wrong.

Normal Defrag:
The files are scattered across the platter but non-fragmented.
20s load time 3s access.

Super Mussels Defrag 2.0:
The files are non-fragmented AND located on the edge of the platter.
20s load time 2s access.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Sep 5, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Don't get pissy my little kangaroo rapist. I'm trying to figure this out. I am using math also but I am trying to figure out the real benefit. So this is how it goes, please tell me if I am wrong.
> 
> Normal Defrag:
> The files are scattered across the platter but non-fragmented.
> ...



if there scattered everywhere.. the access time will be a lot higher then if there all together.... everytime it has to seek to the next file it will take a few more MS... the more files that are spread the longer it will take.



all files together = Seek once..
500 files spread widely... - seek 500 times @ 6 to 20 MS.. depending on HDD speed and distance between files.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 5, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Don't get pissy my little kangaroo rapist. I'm trying to figure this out. I am using math also but I am trying to figure out the real benefit. So this is how it goes, please tell me if I am wrong.
> 
> Normal Defrag:
> The files are scattered across the platter but non-fragmented.
> ...




if they were located towards the outer edge of the platter, the throughput goes up - so the load time goes down. the 20s would not be static.

access times again vary on how many files there are, and how far apart they are - if its 50 files it may save 1 second, if its 5,000 it may save you 30.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 5, 2010)

Well you convined me. Ill try the other defrag program out next my next rebuild.

Edit:

I guess I fell for the bullshit.
I DL the program and ran it. Before I did ANYTHING this is what I had.






And that was done with DEFRAGGLER. As you can see everything is pretty much on the edge already.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 5, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well you convined me. Ill try the other defrag program out next my next rebuild.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> ...



yes, its on the edge. thats a good start. Udefrag goes further than that - it can put all the files in a folder near each other.

your files are still scattered, they're just scattered over that smaller region of the drive (read: you wont get throughput gains, but you can still get access time gains)


----------



## {JNT}Raptor (Sep 5, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well you convined me. Ill try the other defrag program out next my next rebuild.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> ...




As it should be with ANY decent defrag app out there....whats your point?? .....as Mussels has already been trying to tell you.....all files pertaining to "each" game can be placed "together" in a single folder..."together"...not scattered all around...even if your files are around the outer edge they are not being stored "together".

To me it just looks like your trying to put it down and laugh at people the same time.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 5, 2010)

{JNT}Raptor said:


> As it should be with ANY decent defrag app out there....whats your point?? .....as Mussels has already been trying to tell you.....all files pertaining to "each" game can be placed "together" in a single folder..."together"...not scattered all around...even if your files are around the outer edge they are not being stored "together".
> 
> To me it just looks like your trying to put it down and laugh at people the same time.



personally i think he either hasnt quite grasped the concept behind it, or hasnt got the math quite figured out.


in a very simple generalisation: the blocks in Udefrags UI. your game files could be in each of those, or in ONE of those. if they're compacted into the one they're physically near each other, cutting seek times to jump back and forth between them. Again, whether or not its a big change, all depends on how many files the game accesses.

I know i load first of all my friends in MP games, and it pisses them off since they have 'superior' i7 systems - so IMO, this works, and well.


----------



## Bundy (Nov 13, 2010)

Sorry to drag up an old thread but I'm a little concerned about some missing info that might cause readers some issues.

1. Mussels example is not an OS drive. Thats mostly why his selection of defrag options worked. If you must defrag the OS drive, it might be better to ensure respect layout.ini is selected. It would also be wise to do what Mussels recommended and keep your OS on it's own partition so that defragging tasks can be better defined.

2. It is not true to say that windows only defrags files. It also reorganises the files according to layout.ini on every boot. There is a registry flag that records the completion time of the last update of layout.ini at HKLM>software>microsoft>windowsNT>currentversion>prefetcher>lastdisklayouttimestring. You can also get the time from layout.ini file properties. Usually, layout.ini gets updated every 3rd reboot. If layout.ini differs from what your defragger wants, the boot time optimisation will undo your defraggers work and vice versa resulting in continuous defragging and longer boot up times.
To disable windows boot time optimisation, you need to set HKLM>software>microsoft>dfrg>bootoptimizefunction>enable = N
To see if it has been active, look at HKLM>software>microsoft>dfrg>bootoptimisefunction>optimizecomplete
IMO, I would leave these settings alone and not use a commercial defragger on the OS drive because the windows version does a great job - especially if you separate the OS as suggested in point 1. If you must, use a defagger that can respect layout.ini.

3. Running a defragger too often will most likely result in the system restore files being gradually deleted because sys restore is recording all that activity and runs out of space. I do not recommend background defraggers for this reason, including versions that claim to not affect the shadow copy. Defrag once a week is plenty.

4. it is possible to force windows defrag from the command line, including boot optimisation. The command is...defrag and the parameters are below
-c            Defragments all volumes on this computer.
              Don’t specify a drive letter while using this.

-a            Performs fragmentation analysis only.

-r            Performs partial defragmentation (default). Attempts to
              consolidate only fragments smaller than 64 megabytes (MB).

-w            Performs full defragmentation. Attempts to consolidate all file
              fragments, regardless of their size, even 64 MB files.

-f            Forces defragmentation of the volume when free space is low.
              A volume must have at least 15 % free space before Disk Defragmenter
              can completely defragment it.

-i            This makes Defrag run in the background, and operate only if the
              computer is idle, like when run as a scheduled task.

-b            Optimizes boot files and applications only. Use this option
              during a separate defrag operation.

-v            Specifies verbose mode. The defragmentation and analysis output
              is more detailed.

e.g. defrag c: -v 

will defrag c: but not files larger than 64MB and produce a report at the end.

It should only be necessary to use the above commands if you are preparing a drive for imaging etc.

5. Some commercial defraggers do nothing more than provide a GUI for the command line prompts in point 4. Buyer beware!

6. Those using Kaspersky nay find they get faster defrags of the OS drive if "enable self defense" is unchecked whilst defragging and then rechecked immediately after. Most certainly don't run an auto defragger on a drive containing kaspersky - it will almost never end.

Summarising

Install windows into it's own partition and try to avoid filling this up with files. Use windows defrag on this drive. Put all your game/storage files on another drive and either use windows defrag or a 3rd party optimiser like Ultimate defrag to order the files as you wish. Don't defrag too often!


----------



## REDDLINE (Nov 13, 2010)

So he has alot of his stuff on tons of partitions? does it improve performance?


----------



## qubit (Nov 13, 2010)

SpeedsticK said:


> So he has alot of his stuff on tons of partitions? does it improve performance?



Creating partitions doesn't change performance in any way. It's just used to help organize the disc or install multiple operating systems so that they don't interfere with each other.


----------



## Bundy (Nov 13, 2010)

SpeedsticK said:


> So he has alot of his stuff on tons of partitions? does it improve performance?



Qubit answered the question well. An example can be my drives - I have the OS on c: organised according to layout.ini and my steam game files on drive d: organised by file order. Movies and music are stored on a network drive that rarely is defragged - mainly because I only write to this drive, so the files don't defragment anyway.

Performance is gained from the outcome of the file ordering/defragging, partitions just make it easier and quicker to accomplish this.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 14, 2010)

SpeedsticK said:


> So he has alot of his stuff on tons of partitions? does it improve performance?



i keep my OS on a seperate partition, since the optimal settings for it, are different to the optimal settings for a games or storage drive.


as i said above: OS's fragment rapidly, other drives do not. containing that fragmentation to as small a partition as possible, saves you defrag time on your other drives - hell, i havent defragged my storage drives in months, and there isnt a single fragmented file on any of them.


----------



## Stearic (Nov 15, 2010)

Currently, I keep the OS and all the program files (games, Office, Adobe CS4 etc) on C: which is an unpartitioned 640GB drive. My other files are all on the remaining 3 drives- G, M and P. Page file has its own small partition on M:,  and P: is solely for RAW/TIFF/JPEG files from my dslr. I have designated G: and M: as scratch/cache disks for CS4. Everything is well maintained by DK2010 in auto defrag mode with directory consolidation enabled. This set up works perfectly well for my needs.

BTW, I am pretty sure that DK2010 respects layout.ini when sequencing files.

An SSD would be nice, but I am okay with my storage setup for now. What I really, really need is a new CPU. My E6550 is but a minnow in the pool swarming with core i7 sharks


----------



## Bundy (Nov 15, 2010)

Stearic said:


> Currently, I keep the OS and all the program files (games, Office, Adobe CS4 etc) on C: which is an unpartitioned 640GB drive. My other files are all on the remaining 3 drives- G, M and P. Page file has its own small partition on M:,  and P: is solely for RAW/TIFF/JPEG files from my dslr. I have designated G: and M: as scratch/cache disks for CS4. Everything is well maintained by DK2010 in auto defrag mode with directory consolidation enabled. This set up works perfectly well for my needs.
> 
> BTW, I am pretty sure that DK2010 respects layout.ini when sequencing files.
> 
> An SSD would be nice, but I am okay with my storage setup for now. What I really, really need is a new CPU. My E6550 is but a minnow in the pool swarming with core i7 sharks



How far back do your restore points go? I am wondering if Kaspersky self protect is what causes auto defraggers grief. I have one rig that doesn't loose any restore points (using avast) but another using kaspersky is lucky to retain one copy. That was using Ashampoo magical defrag (I tried others as well, including DK).


----------



## Stearic (Nov 16, 2010)

I am running XP and Avira on that rig.


----------

