Is it just me or is defraging on XP really, really slow?

[zephyrprime]

And why does XP fragment files so much? Yeash. My drives are ntfs format. Are there any fast alternatives to the XP defragger?

 

[Baldrick]

Try diskeeper.

 

[wizz0bang]

Yup, it's _fraging_ slow ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist.

Oh... the MS defrag routine not only defrags the volume, but it "optimizes" the files on the volume as well (believe there is a ton of info on this in the help files or the ResKit). So it actually copies many files and moves them around rathern than just defrag them into contiguous file segments.

 

[Broadkipa]

Right first things first, when you installed XP did you get XP to convert your drive to ntfs. If you did then you will most likely find that you have a cluster size of 512Kbs. This is the default size that Windows uses.
This is the cause of the fragmentation of your drive. I had the same problem with my XP install when I went from Fat32 to NTFS. I used a program called Partition Manager by Paragon Software to convert my cluster size to 4Mbs. It did this without me loseing any data. As far as I know this is the only program to do this.
P.S Yes ,Diskeeper is the defrag program you need.

 

[zephyrprime]

Oh... the MS defrag routine not only defrags the volume, but it "optimizes" the files on the volume as well (believe there is a ton of info on this in the help files or the ResKit). So it actually copies many files and moves them around rathern than just defrag them into contiguous file segments.

This was certainly true for win98 but does Windows XP still do this? It sort of seems to me like 2K and XP just don't do the file loading optimization.

 

[JellyBaby]

It's fraggin' slow with FAT32 also. Pretty pathetic given third-party products work so much faster. Perhap that was the intent all along (to politely guide us to Norton, etc.).

 

[Doh!]

Broadkipa,

512kb & 4mb for a cluster size? I think you meant 512 bytes & 4 kb.

 

[Broadkipa]

Er your right, I got my Bits and Bytes messed up.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
It's fraggin' slow with FAT32 also. Pretty pathetic given third-party products work so much faster. Perhap that was the intent all along (to politely guide us to Norton, etc.).

Actually, it was.

The defragger in XP is written by the Diskkeeper folks. They claim it's based on a different engine than the Diskkeeper product, but who knows.

Defrag in WinXP is crippled intentionally. (For instance, you can't schedule it.) If defragging is important to you, you'd probably be much happier with a third party product than what's built in.

 

[earthman]

It doesn't seem that slow on my system (SCSI). Its definitely slower than 3rd party products though. I suppose if good utilities were built in, the 3rd party vendors would complain just the way the Netscape people said it wasn't fair to bundle a browser.