Defrag or not?
 

OK I know you guys will probably laugh but I've never done this on my 2-3 year old PC (XP Home Edition SP3) and am wondering if it'd be worth doing.

What does defragging do (layman's terms please :D) and how do I do it? My hard drive has Boot (C) Backup (D) and Recover (E) sections so which should I defrag and how?

Cheers.

Re: Defrag or not?
 

A HDD stores all your files...these files might be as one chunk of data but could be broken up to fit into spaces left by deleted files... Obviously if a file is in one piece the HDD takes so many milliseconds to find it and then reads it in one continuous sweep. If the file is broken up then each section has to be individually found and then individually read. Defrag tries to sort out your data so that all the files are pieced back together and also placed near beginning of the HDD so faster to access..

If you do a lot of reading from the HDD (for example outlook having a large PST file or a large graphics file or even playing games) defragging your HDD on a regular basis can speed things up..

Personally I defrag once a month and leave it overnight..

Re: Defrag or not?
 

Defragging is often good, and can speed up a computer.

When programmes are installed, they are installed on the first free spaces on the hard drive. If you uninstall a programme, it will delete it from the hard drive, leaving empty space on the drive. This means if you install a programme, it will install in that empty space. If the programme is larger than how ever big thatempty space it, it will look for the next available space to install it into. And so on.
This means a programme can get spread across a disc in various bits of free space. I hope you understand what I mean.

A defragmenter analyses the hard drive, and reorganises the whole drive. It says it 'moves' things, but that doesn't mean a file has moved from say C:\ to My Documents...it just means it's been arranged better for faster access on the hard drive.

If a disc is fragmented, it takes longer to load a programme, because it's dotted accross the disc. Once it's been defragmented, it 'should' load faster, because the files are all together and organised.

I advise using JkDefrag, which is very small and good imo.

http://www.kessels.com/Jkdefrag/

Edit; Defragging can take a long time, depending on the size of the hard drive, and how fragmented it is.

Re: Defrag or not?
 

Start / all programs / accessories / system tools / disk defragmenter. Just click on C drive and then select defrag this drive. You could do the back up (D drive) too, but I wouldn'tworry about the recovery.

As you have never done it before it could take quite a while (over an hour or maybe more) so best to do it overnight or if you go out.

Hope this helps.

Re: Defrag or not?
 

Another vote for JKDefrag here. It's free as well.

The defrag utility that comes with windows is erm, not very good...

Re: Defrag or not?
 

Thanks guys :tu:

Re: Defrag or not?
 

Also have a look at Defraggler.

It's by the same people who make CCleaner and lets you defrag only fragmented files as well as the whole drive which is a nice quick way of defragging but obviously doing the whole drive is better but can take a long time.

Re: Defrag or not?
 

I'm using Ashampoo Magical Defrag 2.After the first original defraging it quietly works in the background to keep your HD(s) defragged.

I like it because thus far it's the only software that will defrag my Freecom External HD.

Re: Defrag or not?
 

Auslogics do a FREE fast disk defragger and a registry defragger... both very useful in speeding up your machine.

Re: Defrag or not?
 

My system runs great when I use JkDegrag and CCleaner (Clears unnecessary files and registry errors)

Re: Defrag or not?
 

I use Diskeeper 2008, it automatically defrags your hd and files as and when needed. It will even defrag usb memory sticks :) and defrags any new hd's when they are detected, dont have to touch anything.

even if your Instaling something then it defrags them as you Install it. when your copying files from 1 hd to another it defrags them.

I never have to defrag my hd again :) its all done for me. 1 of the best i think.

Re: Defrag or not?
 

^ I also use Diskeeper, now mine's the 2009 Pro version. Awesome as usual, and works flawlessly in automatic defrag mode. Don't ever have to defrag after installing it. Best defragger I've used :D

Re: Defrag or not?
 

I use IOBit Smart Defrag. It doesn't only defragment the HDD it also has fast and deep optimization options

Re: Defrag or not?
 

Auslogics for me also, and I defrag once a month.

Re: Defrag or not?
 

I like to defrag:D, keeps my PC working smooth. Diskeeper running on auto for me too. Great job, dont have to do anything manually.

Re: Defrag or not?
 

Another vote for Diskeeper. :tu:

Re: Defrag or not?
 

One quick warning about defrag programs though.. At work, we use Safeboot disk encryption software and, if you use the wrong defragger, you can completely lock yourself out of your hard drive and only forensic specialists are able to get the drive back working again.

Caused many tears when someone here did that (and it wasn't me, honest!!)

Re: Defrag or not?
 

Agreed, you have to be careful with defragging and disk encryption. That's another reason why I've continued with Diskeeper after checking up on it.
http://www.diskeeperblog.com/archive...mentation.html

Recently, I've started using Truecrypt (it's free and good) for encrypting a 160GB harddrive where I store my personal financial records as well as a few research files from my workplace (lab). None of these are particularly sensitive files and the sky won't come crashing down if they are lost, but I like to keep them safe nonetheless. When I need to defrag these files (rarely), I mount the volume in Truecrypt and defrag using Diskeeper. So far, works without a hitch.

Re: Defrag or not?
 

Can I ask a question about the Disk Defragmenter that comes with Vista on my laptop?

On my main computer, XP, I have been using JkDefrag on a regular basis but I have been relying on the built in disk defragmenter on my laptop, scheduled to run weekly, and have assumed that it would suffice.

Would I be better off using JkDerag or Diskeeper instead?

Re: Defrag or not?
 

diskeeper, will take control of your windows defrager, as quite simply its crap.

Jkdefrag , i have no idea what that does or is like, but u can guess what diskeeper is like from the response on the thread here. Diskpeer you can use as a trial and if u like it then use it,

Anythings better than windows defrag imo! Hope that helps some how.

Re: Defrag or not?
 

Thanks keyholder. I will have a closer look at diskeeper. :tu:

Re: Defrag or not?
 

Assuming you keep a fair amount of space on the disk, NTFS does a pretty good job of keeping itself defragmented. As long as it can find space to write a file in one continuous lump, it will. It's when the disk gets full that it starts splitting clusters up, and that causes slowdowns.

IMHO, the best method I've found is to first make sure that your swap file is defragmented:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s.../bb897426.aspx

I generally go with the 'double ram size' rule on swap files, and fix them to that size, then run pagedefrag over them. Then forget about it! Best done as one of the absolute first things when you install Windows, as it doesn't have much of an effect long-term if you do it later.

For the odd few files that do get horribly fragmented, you need contig:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s.../bb897428.aspx

You can run it on a specific file, or directory structure, and it'll push those files into one piece.

I rarely defrag, as I keep things tidy anyway. Giving windows space to write things is the best bet.

Re: Defrag or not?
 

I use JKDefrag too. it works on the MS API, so doesn't do anything nasty!

---------- Post added at 23:45 ---------- Previous post was at 23:39 ----------

pretty sure MS suggest 1.5x the RAM you have. personally, I set mine to 1Gb pagefile, as I'd rather it use as much RAM first. You'll be surprised how much pageing the OS will do even with copious amounts of free RAM when it doesn't need to.

Re: Defrag or not?
 

Anything over 4gb of ram and i dont even use a page file, even in win xp with only 3.5 ram reconised i still dont use one.

Re: Defrag or not?
 

TBH, it depends where on the MS sites you look! I've found some articles saying 1.5x, and others saying 2x. I work on the basis of 'more than I have actual ram', and of a fixed size, and Windows is usually happy.

That being said, with 2GB of RAM I generally set it to 2GB still (so within the 32-bit limit). If it's on 64-bit, you can go with double, or as I've done here, I've got 4GB ram, so set the swap to 4GB.

Whilst you can disable it entirely (and I did for some time), I think it doesn't hurt to leave it on, as Windows is designed to swap things out to disk; Vista less so, it likes to hold onto stuff in RAM as much as possible.

Swap file optimisation is a whole can of worms in itself. If I can find the articles, I'll post them up.

Re: Defrag or not?
 

The recommended page file usage is more historical than anything these days. it was really for when machines only had 32Mb RAM, etc. though it can still cause major issues if the machine crashes and you don't have a paging area, but I think the risk is small these days.

---------- Post added at 11:13 ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 ----------

definitely agree with setting the upped and lower limits the same. I don't like the idea of windows deciding, even if it's within a range. wasted space on modern machines!!!