Defrag or not? - Page 2

Mick Fisher · 12-02-2009, 18:01

Another vote for Diskeeper.

jonbxx · 13-02-2009, 09:57

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!!)

Dragonfire · 13-02-2009, 14:04

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.

joglynne · 13-02-2009, 14:38

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?

keyholder · 13-02-2009, 14:49

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.

joglynne · 13-02-2009, 15:01

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

KingDaveRa · 14-02-2009, 00:37

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.

idi banashapan · 14-02-2009, 00:45

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingDaveRa

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.

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.

keyholder · 14-02-2009, 06:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bender

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.

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.

KingDaveRa · 14-02-2009, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bender

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.

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.

idi banashapan · 14-02-2009, 12:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by keyholder

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.

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingDaveRa

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.

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!!!