I guess the question on whether defragmenting is necessary will always have a mixd response. As for Diskeeper, I have been using it for so many years now and each version has only got better. I think the latest intelliwrite feature is superb.
If your running windows and not SSD, then yes you still need to defrag your drives. Though I don't see a real need to go outside of the built in windows tool to do it. Sure other software may be better at it. But it gets the job done well enough.
The main issue with defrag really comes down to disk wear.
Fragmentation is basically incontiguous pieces of files and free space randomly scattered across a disk.
This condition impacts the disk drive on two fronts:
1. the writing of files (which usually have to be broken into pieces so they can be written to the many bits of available empty spaces) and
2. the reading or accessing of files (finding all the file fragments scattered across the disk).
Every time a file fragment has to be written involves disk action (I/O) for each piece so written.
Every I/O wears the disk a little bit more.
Every time a file is accessed involves disk action to locate each file piece so the file can be accessed (more I/Os; more disk wear).
I have seen reports where some files are fragmented into thousands of pieces (I've even seen some in the tens of thousands of pieces), so do the math.....
The disk, being mechanical, will simply wear-out faster the more it is used.
That's the simplicity of it.
As for the built-in being "good enough", well it is primarily meant for casual, occasional, "better than nothing" use.
For one thing, it can’t really defrag well while the machine is in use, so it waits for the machine to be idle (most of the time that means overnight).
How much unnecessary disk wear occurred throughout the day from writing/reading files? Or asked another way, how much disk wear is “good enough�
On the other hand, what would you think of a job applicant who used Notepad instead of Word for his resume because it was included in the OS?
What about a photographer who uses Paint instead of Photoshop to touch up his photos for the same reason?
Sure, those built-ins can do a job, but does that make them "good enough" for all purposes?
Good enough often means just that. Defrag is good enough. Often in life there is the 90% rule. This is very true in computers. If you aren't familiar with that rule it basically works like this. For a reasonable cost you can get a solution that is 90% effective. To reach 95% that price usually doubles. To hit 100% (which is actually often not attainable) the price can goes up astronomically.
So the question isn't IF Diskkeeper is better then Defrag. The question is, is Diskkeeper so much better over using defrag over doing nothing to justify the cost. I don't believe it is.
The in-built is way too slow and fairly weak! Diskeeper 2011 is great and very very helpful. It manages fragmentation and maintains performance very well.
I let my RAID 10 memory get 95% filled up, and even freeing up 17% of the disk space I can't defrag because of a "shadow copy". The disk is pretty highly fragmented according to Microsoft's defrag analyzer. Using Windows XP. I disabled the shadow volume startup type, but still can't defrg. Any suggestion?
RootWyrm
Icrontian
Comments
Fragmentation is basically incontiguous pieces of files and free space randomly scattered across a disk.
This condition impacts the disk drive on two fronts:
1. the writing of files (which usually have to be broken into pieces so they can be written to the many bits of available empty spaces) and
2. the reading or accessing of files (finding all the file fragments scattered across the disk).
Every time a file fragment has to be written involves disk action (I/O) for each piece so written.
Every I/O wears the disk a little bit more.
Every time a file is accessed involves disk action to locate each file piece so the file can be accessed (more I/Os; more disk wear).
I have seen reports where some files are fragmented into thousands of pieces (I've even seen some in the tens of thousands of pieces), so do the math.....
The disk, being mechanical, will simply wear-out faster the more it is used.
That's the simplicity of it.
As for the built-in being "good enough", well it is primarily meant for casual, occasional, "better than nothing" use.
For one thing, it can’t really defrag well while the machine is in use, so it waits for the machine to be idle (most of the time that means overnight).
How much unnecessary disk wear occurred throughout the day from writing/reading files? Or asked another way, how much disk wear is “good enough�
On the other hand, what would you think of a job applicant who used Notepad instead of Word for his resume because it was included in the OS?
What about a photographer who uses Paint instead of Photoshop to touch up his photos for the same reason?
Sure, those built-ins can do a job, but does that make them "good enough" for all purposes?
So the question isn't IF Diskkeeper is better then Defrag. The question is, is Diskkeeper so much better over using defrag over doing nothing to justify the cost. I don't believe it is.
Coz I need it 4 Windoez Milenieam Edishion.
I disabled the shadow volume startup type, but still can't defrg.
Any suggestion?