Best Defrag Method For NTFS WinXP

[RVN]

I'm using O&O pro defragmenter which offers these methods to defrag: Stealth, Space, Complete Name, Complete Date or Complete Access. Can anyone shed any light on what the advantages or disadvantages of these methods?

 

[Lord Evermore]

I'm betting the help file can.

 

[RVN]

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore
I'm betting the help file can.

The Help file does not help. Online information simply states:

O&O Defrag V4 now offers five different defragmentation strategies for individual system optimization and to secure the best results:
STEALTH for resource optimized defragmentation, SPACE for classic consolidation of the hard disk, COMPLETE/Name for defragmentation that features alphabetical arrangement of files by name, COMPLETE/Date for defragmentation that features arrangement of files by date of the last modification, and COMPLETE/Access which features arrangement of files by date of the last file access.



Anyone?

 

[Lord Evermore]

Pretty clear to me:

Stealth = defragging without making your system unusable during the defrag.
Space = not really a defrag, just consolidation of free space
Complete variations = normal defrag with files arranged based on name or date modified
Complete/access = defrag with files arranged based on how recently they were accessed

Complete/access is essentially what a normal Windows defrag does, since Windows tracks file usage and arranges files for fastest access based on usage patterns. I assume that O&O will use the logging function of Windows to arrange the files according to that access, rather than just putting the most recently accessed files at the front of the drive (Windows knows that often-accessed files should go ahead of a file that's accessed once but recently).

The complete/date variation would be good if you needed very quick access to certain files that are often modified (but which don't tend to get any bigger). They'd go at the front of the disk for faster reading and writing, but other files that don't change, like program files, might not be arranged optimally to reduce load times. If the important files get any bigger as well, parts of them will end up getting written farther out on the disk, possibly even all the way at the end, so performance gets reduced.

 

[Satanist]

Use the XPs own format...easy and takes about 25mins and your win is up again =)

 

[Satanist]

Sorry. Mixed up format and defragment =)

 

[Lord Evermore]

XP's own defrag is usable too. It doesn't do quite as good a job as others, but adequate. The only major issue is it doesn't defrag the master file table, which is just stupid.

 

[RVN]

Thanks Lord Evermore!

If the "Space" defrag isn't really a defrag just a consolidation of free space, isn't that the way the built-in WinXP defrags? If not what method does the built-in version use?

I've been defragging back and forth between the O&O space defrag and the freeware limited version of diskeeper. Any ideas which approach to defragging the diskeeper lite uses?

 

[Lord Evermore]

WinXP defrag consolidates free space, but that's something all defraggers do. It also defrags the individual files first, THEN moves them so that there's no empty space (well, moves and defrags at the same time). That's the "complete" defrag. Diskkeeper and O&O and all others do it that way; the commercial defraggers just do a bit more like defragging the MFT. I wish I could install just the defragger from Norton Systemworks, because I hate all the other utilities.

Back in the day, with DOS defrag you had the option of just consolidating free space, just defragging files and ignoring free space, or doing both.