Re: A question regarding Defragmentation (158 Views)
Reply
Frequent Advisor
Deck Shuey
Posts: 112
Registered: ‎12-03-2008
Message 1 of 6 (158 Views)
Accepted Solution

A question regarding Defragmentation

Hi Folks - Surprise Surprise...I have another question.

When I Defrag my computer I don't use the Disk Defragmenter that came with my computer. The reason I don't is that somebody here quite some time ago recommended I use "Piriform Defraggler" instead.

I just finished running it. When it's done it shows 4 headings if u click on the "File List Tab". They are:

Filename Fragments Size Path
A0114506.exe 1 36,527KB

I listed one as an example, although I didn't have room for the path information because they are too long. Here is the Path for the one I listed above.

C:\System Volume Information\_restore{8D290BB5-E59C-462B-AOEE-E8949A1E4344}\RP750

Also - the size of the example I used (it was the 1st Filename in the list) was much bigger than most of the rest of them. I'm not sure how many files are listed...but a ballpark guess would be around 500?

Oh yea - every Filename on the list has the #1 listed under the Fragments heading.

When it is done it also shows the Status for Drive C: The results are just below.

Defrag Complete

Analysis Results are:

1,573 Fragmented Files(2.1GB)
12,239 Total Fragments
4% Fragmentation

Curent State:
0 Fragmented Files(0.0B)
0 Total Fragments
0% Fragmentation

Every File in the File List has a box just to the left of it...which I'm 99% sure is there to click on if you want to remove that Filename.

There is also a box at the very top next to the heading Filename which I'm 99% sure is there to click on if you want to get rid of them all at once.

I guess this is an elementary question for all the computer wizards out there, but: can I click on the box that will get rid of all the Files? I'm guessing that I can't.

Although I also assume if you're a computer wizard...you can go down the list & just click on the 1's that you know should be clicked on?

Finally - the "Analysis Results" which I have shown above. Do these results look pretty normal for a Defrag?

I'd appreciate any comments, suggestions, answers, etc. THANKS

Frequent Advisor
Deck Shuey
Posts: 112
Registered: ‎12-03-2008
Message 2 of 6 (158 Views)

Re: A question regarding Defragmentation

Hi Again - After I finished the post I just wrote...I still had the Defraggler screen on my monitor. At the bottom of the page it has buttons for Analyze - Defrag (this has a drop down arrow also) - Pause & Stop.

I clicked on Analyze because I saw I could....because it was lit up & not grayed out like the other 3.

When I did this I got another File List. This list had 50 files & none of them had just 1 fragment like the other list.

These had as high as 17 fragments & as low as 2. So obviously, this is a list of the one's with more than 1 fragment. The list runs from highest to lowest # of fragments. As an example, here is the 1st one on the list...& the last one:

Filename Fragments Size Path

MrClean.db 17 6,396KB
global{1).css 2 7KB

The size of the 1st one is much bigger than the rest. Also...I didn't include the "Path" name's because they are too long.

Also...the Analyze button is still lit up. I guess I'll click on it again to see what happens: OK - it just shows the Filenames that have more than 1 fragment again.

I just thought I would add this info to my original post in case it may help in some way.
Esteemed Contributor
Jules
Posts: 835
Registered: ‎05-15-2003
Message 3 of 6 (158 Views)

Re: A question regarding Defragmentation

Most home users should never need to defrag their hard disk in the life of their computer.
That is unless they have been installing programs and uninstalling programs a lot.

If you use the windows defragmenter utility you can 'analyse this disk' and 99% of the itme it does not need defragmenting.

If it a falacy that defragging is a maintenance operation that one should perform on the computer on a weekly basis.

Defragging is very memory intensive. Your memory can actually fail with all the 'hard work' that is involved in defragging.

Why are you wanting to defrag Deck?
nd what objection have you to using the Windows utility?
---++++Only read the manual as a last resort++++---.
Acclaimed Contributor
Dennis Handly
Posts: 25,089
Registered: ‎03-06-2006
Message 4 of 6 (158 Views)

Re: A question regarding Defragmentation

>Jules: Defragging is very memory intensive. Your memory can actually fail

Hmm. I would have thought the hard work is the disk drive, not so much memory. Because of the physical movement, not the electrons.
Frequent Advisor
Deck Shuey
Posts: 112
Registered: ‎12-03-2008
Message 5 of 6 (158 Views)

Re: A question regarding Defragmentation

The reason I switched to the Defrag program that isn't the one that comes on the computer is that a long time ago someone from this forum suggested that it was better to use the one I described earlier.

Although since I've had this computer & gone to the Defrag that comes with it....I think out of all the times I hit analyze....it only said it needed to be done one time.

And I was also told I should defrag it once in a while even if it says it isn't needed. And when I do it...I can always see some improvement when I look at the colored graph...although sometimes it is very small.

But I guess I'll stop doing it unless it's needed from now on. Boy, it seems that depending who you talk to about computers....you can get totally different answers.

Like movie reviewers...some say it's great & some say it is awful. But I know it isn't the same. Movies are subjective & I think most of the times re: computers....there aren't so many gray areas....one way is correct regarding some computer info....& the other is incorrect.

THANKS
Occasional Visitor
John Strander
Posts: 1
Registered: ‎03-01-2011
Message 6 of 6 (158 Views)

Re: A question regarding Defragmentation

Deck, if your post-defrag analysis shows zero fragmentation, everything is fine, nothing to worry about. Sometimes, even just a few fragments is nothing to worry about, since the filesystem continuously fragments as you use it.

The key is to not let fragmentation reach a level where it begins to impact disk performance, especially when fragmentation of system files is involved. The old XP defragger is manual, the newer automatic defraggers solve the problems of scheduling regular defrags; the best ones even prevent much of the fragmentation (these are not free, however).

Anyway, it's *incorrect* that
(1) home users don't need to defrag regularly. All windows filesystems (NTFS/FAT) fragment upon usage and regular defrag is a good idea. Otherwise, MS wouldn't still be including a defragger in current iterations of Windows.

(2) defragging wears out 'memory' faster. Actually, defragging is done on the hard drive, not RAM. Also a regularly defragged drive will have little fragmentation on it at any time, so subsequent defrags are a quick affair. More importantly, it takes more work for the drive's read/write head assemby to read a fragmented file compared to a contiguous (defragmented) file, so over the long run, fragmentation actually increases the wear of the drive, if anything.
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of HP. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.