Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!


Discussion on Article:
Mission "Defragmentation"

Started by: boner | Date 06/21/07 01:39:21 PM
Comments: 26 | Last Comment:  11/12/07 10:38:02 PM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads


I'm not sure why you're not specifying the software used - maybe I'm overlooking them in your Testbed but it's obviously Diskeeper of some flavor or another. Regardless the software is a variable that is unaccounted for without testing any competing defragmenters out there. Granted, Diskeeper technology is what's embedded into Windows - and I love its full-fledged products - but it's still a variable here.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 06/21/07 01:39:21 PM]

Windows' built-in disk defragmenter really doesn't work well, especially for heavily fragmented drives -- my main storage drive for a few years, an old Maxtor DiamondMax 740, was so badly fragmented that it not only put your testbed to shame but couldn't even be disentangled by Windows' defragmenter.

Actually one thing I would like to see, especially from a more or less independent source like X-Bit Labs, is a shootout of defragmenter programs. I've tried Windows' built-in, Diskeeper v7 through 10, Raxco Perfect Disk, and O&O Defrag. In my experience, with nearly-full and extremely fragmented drives, O&O performed best out of that group -- but an independent test would be really nice.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 06/21/07 08:15:14 PM]

NCQ gives better performance only when many processes uses the same disk simultaneously. Disk defragmenters have one process for disk, so enabling NCQ doesn't make difference.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 06/22/07 12:27:11 AM]
- collapse thread

NCQ boosts performance when reading and writing successive clusters and not random ones, when the commands can be queued if necessary. Defragmentation is performed in this particular way that is why we could theoretically expect a performance improvement. Some of our fellow testers claim they've seen improvement up to tens of percents.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 06/22/07 08:49:29 AM]

You should have added a SSD to the comparison !
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 06/22/07 08:42:38 AM]

Slightly off-topic comment:

In my experience, if the first pass of defragmentation doesn't give perfect results (as shown on page 2), another pass will deliver a perfect result, and this second pass will be much faster.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 06/22/07 11:49:41 AM]
- collapse thread

Not only does 2 passes with the default defragger improve results, but also the windows prefetching mechanism seems flawed, perhaps geared to ancient setups when drives were different and much smaller?
Anyway if a HD gets full near capacity it helps to remove layout.ini from %system%/windows/prefetch, it makes the drive boot much faster and it prevents the infamous missing trayicons bug I discovered.

0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 06/23/07 05:11:04 PM]

Defrag ? I never do that !

Oh ! but wait ! That's only for windoze users !!!

Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah aha ha hahahah ahahahahahha !!!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 06/26/07 05:14:59 AM]

Disk defragmentation is a terrible test of NCQ. The program is trying to make sure that what it does, is done safely. For this, it waits for each IO to complete before issuing another. Therefore no Queue buildup occurs on the drives.

NCQ will only have an effect if the number of IOs issues independently exceeds the rate at which the drive can satisfy them in the order they are issued.

I expect Xbitlabs' clever guys to know simple stuff like this. I like to refer people to this site because of its general good quality of articles compared to some other sites that I won't name but are very popular despite all the misinformation they spread as fact.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 06/27/07 07:35:22 AM]


Back to the Article

Add your Comment