• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Disk Defragmentors

Mitzi

Diamond Member
Hi,

Just noticed an add in local PC press for piece of software called Diskeeper 6 (www.execsoft.co.uk) which claims to improve performace by 51-81% on Windows 2000.

I would of thought that it would be system dependant but not really a hugh performance increase anyway, suppose it depends how much you use the hard disk. I guess it offers a good increase on low memory systems which have to keep swapping to disk.

Any one use defragmentors on W2K? Do they offer a HUGE performance increase? (I have 384Mb RAM, PIII 850).

They have an eval version I wonder if its worth trying out.
 
If you're using w2k, & would like to know how well Diskeeper improve your system, all you have to do is use w2k's default defragmentation application (which is a mini-version of Diskeeper anyway). If you're happy with the improvement, then you can consider buying it later.
 
Hi, Mitzi.

If you're using the FAT file system, there's no reason for you to bother with anything but the standard (included) defragger in Win2K. If, however, you use NTFS that can be a very different matter. The inbuilt defragger in Win2K doesn't defrag the metadata / MFT. Some (most?) third party defraggers defrag some or even all of the metadata and MFT and pagefiles and registry hives at boot time. Some of them (like O&O Defrag) can do this very quickly and efficiently every time the system is restarted. You have to tell the commercial version of Diskeeper each time you wish to perform a boot-time defrag. Be careful to stay away from any defragger that tries to defrag the metadata and MFT while running in the GUI mode of the OS. That's a certain invitation to disaster. I know that Norton's Speed Disk used to do this, but I believe they may have removed that option in recent versions.

Whether you actually NEED a third party defragger, even with NTFS, depends upon a lot of factors. If you install and uninstall apps frequently, if you move a lot of files on and off of the hard drive(s), if you run apps that really thrash the drives a lot (video editing, big-time databases, etc.), if you've got small file allocation units for some reason (like having converted from FAT32 to NTFS), then a third party defragger can make a big difference in performance. If you don't do any of those things, then the standard included defragger may well be all that you need.

I tend to use Executive Software's Diskeeper on servers because it has a feature called FragGuard that helps prevent internal and external fragmentation of pagefiles and the Master File Table. I tend to use O&O Defrag on notebooks because they get restarted frequently anyway (We move around from site to site a lot.) so O&O's always-on boot-time defragger does the job for us in that respect. And, after you've run it once so that it can assess your system for "unmovable files" you can add those unmovable files to the boot-time defrag routine. One other defragger I've heard good things about is Raxco's Perfect Disk. I tried it briefly several months ago and was put off by some bugs in the interface. But those may well have been fixed by now, and several people whose judgment I trust say it's very good.

Anyway, these all have trial versions, so I don't think it should hurt to try them out. Do be sure to read the installation options carefully. If the option is offered, I recommend telling the installer to back up the original defragger files so that they can be restored if / when you uninstall the third party defragger.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Jim
 
Cheers for the indepth replies.

After my post installation W2K teething troubles are sorted out I may try Diskeeper and Raxco's defraggers.

The reason for me asking is I do PL/SQL programming so I will need to re-install Oracle Personal Edition sometime in the future, and it ran like a real dog on Win98SE so I was looking for anything to improve performance. I cannot add more RAM as my board is maxed out (its only an old Supermicro BX).

Again, thanks.
 
Hi, again. Depending upon your hardware, WinXP may be a real godsend for you. WinXP Pro RC2 runs better on my older machines than Win2K does! I guess that's primarily because of its superior device support base, but the interface is snappier on all systems on which I have it running. I say this because of your reference to teething troubles with Win2K. In both Win2K and WinXP it's all about the drivers -- even when you think it's software. A lot of software installs stuff that behaves like, and interacts with, kernel mode drivers. The only app crashes I've seen in Win2K have been directly attributable to this. In cases where I couldn't get a driver update, I scrapped the relevant hardware (or software) and went with a replacement. It has always worked.

Good luck!

Regards,
Jim
 
Back
Top