MyDefrag "battling" W7 system optimizations

[quanthero]

This is not how Windows built-in defragmenter works. It essentially does 3 things: 1) optimize access (according to prefetch), 2) defragment fragmented files, 3) consolidate free space (i.e. fill gaps with files from 'above' these gaps). Thus, Windows built-in defragmenter can and will interfere with MyDefrag, because 1) it will fill gaps created between MyDefrag's zones, 2) it will optimize disk layout according to prefetch (MyDefrag does this very differently).

[Darlis]

You have to separate between derfagmentation and optimization. The Windows defragmenter may have better defragmentation routine but defragmentation is not all. (You may want to a look at the Defragment(Chunksize(NUMBER)) action. It's almost an in-place defragmentation)

But as you have seen, the Windows defragger is not good at optimizing, since it scatters files used by programs. MyDefrag also keeps directories and MFT close together for better performance. I don't know if the Windows defragger will do this.

[Kasuha]

My disk doesn't look like the windows defragmenter is filling up gaps between files

I know about Defragment(Chunksize) but I did not notice that it was fixed in any of recent release notes so I assume it's as broken as it was before. And no it's not an in-place defragmentation.

Regarding Windows optimization strategy, I'm not saying it's better than MyDefrag's. I just believe I can combine both because they don't really go against each other if I use proper MyDefrag script.

I think MyDefrag is very good in optimizing the disk performance, but it is unnecessarily thorough in doing so and it doesn't need to be used too often. And in the meanwhile built-in W7 defrag/optimization can take care of the maintenance.

[jeroen]

What I'm trying to achieve is to make them to stop battling and rather start cooperating, if it is possible.

I am sorry but I do not know how to do that. It is a mystery to me how the Windows build-in defragmenter places the files used at boot time, and how it optimizes the disk. I am sure there must be some logic behind it, but it looks like a big mess to me.

I know about Defragment(Chunksize) but I did not notice that it was fixed in any of recent release notes so I assume it's as broken as it was before.

What do you mean it is broken? I am not aware of any bug, it works exactly as designed. Maybe it is not working how you want it to, but that is not quite the same thing as "broken".

I think MyDefrag is very good in optimizing the disk performance, but it is unnecessarily thorough in doing so and it doesn't need to be used too often. And in the meanwhile built-in W7 defrag/optimization can take care of the maintenance.

Most people want the most thorough optimization possible.... At the moment I do not know how to make the build-in defragmenter cooperate with MyDefrag, so my advice is to turn it off. Using it for maintenance will result is a big mess, you should consider using the MyDefrag daily script instead. Or make a daily version of your own script, using FastFill and Defragment(fast) and commands like that.

[BloodySword]

Sorry in my opineon your approach is exaggerated. You actually make your system slower. And if MyDefrag is so crappy, why are you here and trying to adapt the crap "optimization" of the sick diskeeper? I don't understand the hustle and bustle.

Wile defragmenting, the Windows defragmentation only consults files smaller than 64 MB.

[Kasuha]

I am sorry but I do not know how to do that. It is a mystery to me how the Windows build-in defragmenter places the files used at boot time, and how it optimizes the disk. I am sure there must be some logic behind it, but it looks like a big mess to me.

According to Darlis' script, all the files selected by ImportListFromBootOptimize() command are located at the start of the disk (my original MyDefrag script makes a several GB big gap at the start of the disk so the optimizer had enough room for them). I believe it shouldn't be too hard to just make appropriate zone there to stop the battling. I'll try it and let you know.

What do you mean it is broken? I am not aware of any bug, it works exactly as designed. Maybe it is not working how you want it to, but that is not quite the same thing as "broken".

Yes, I understand that the command does exactly what you intend it to do, but it does not accomplish tasks I am intending to accomplish. Last time I checked, if this command detected a chunk of the file smaller than the limit, it put the whole rest of the file, regardless its size and fragmentation, to one big piece. First of all, I don't call it defragmenting in place - and second, it often means a lot of unnecessary data movement. For example, if the fragments looked like this:
1G - small - 1G - 2G
Then the result was
1G - small+3G
While it would completely suffice if it was able to make
1G - small+1G - 2G
or
1G+small - 1G - 2G
If this behavior improved in the meantime, accept my apologies for not noticing.

Most people want the most thorough optimization possible.... At the moment I do not know how to make the build-in defragmenter cooperate with MyDefrag, so my advice is to turn it off. Using it for maintenance will result is a big mess, you should consider using the MyDefrag daily script instead. Or make a daily version of your own script, using FastFill and Defragment(fast) and commands like that.

I believe (and all evidence I have confirms it) the windows defragmenter does almost exactly what would MyDefrag's defragment(fast) command do. I see no harm in it doing that while MyDefrag is not running because all MyDefrag's scripts perform that (or even more thorough) operation too.
Plus, there's only few files fragmented after some time and absolute majority of files is in one fragment - the defragmenter does not move these files at all, unlike MyDefrag which likes to move zones slightly up or down based on how much full the disk is, moving lots of already defragmented files in the process.

Last time I ran my MyDefrag script was about two months ago. Except for boot optimize files being placed at the beginning of the disk, I can still see all zones sitting where that optimization run left them. Yes, there are gaps and file streaks all around and some fragmented files too, but the overall shape is intact - so I really don't think windows are making any big mess there.

I can understand many MyDefrag users - and especially those visiting these forums - feel a pressure to have their disks "perfectly optimized" all the time. I was such a freak once too. Well, two of my disks already got trashed during optimization process (one with JKdefrag, one with MyDefrag), that taught me that less effort may mean more gain. The disk can stay in "almost optimized" state for a very long time after the optimization in fact.

[BloodySword]

Your disk trashing was random. It had nothing to do with huge optimization. A Disk Lifespan of 3 Years is okay. After that, you will upgrate it... Keeping the computer optimized can be a better benefit instead of watching that the drive doesnt move files...

[jeroen]

Yes, I understand that the command does exactly what you intend it to do, but it does not accomplish tasks I am intending to accomplish.

Ok, thanks for the explanation. We agree it's not "broken" then, it's just not doing what you would like it to do, and it can be improved. At the moment it is perfectly fine for maintenance of big logfiles and databases and such, which grow at the end.

I believe (and all evidence I have confirms it) the windows defragmenter does almost exactly what would MyDefrag's defragment(fast) command do.

Well, I disagree with you there, but if you are happy using it for daily maintenance then fine with me. I do agree with you that many people overestimate the value of daily defragmentation and optimization, though.

[Kasuha]

Ok, thanks for the explanation. We agree it's not "broken" then, it's just not doing what you would like it to do, and it can be improved. At the moment it is perfectly fine for maintenance of big logfiles and databases and such, which grow at the end.

This is playing with words. Your manual says:

ChunkSize
This is an option for the Defragment fileaction. It will only defragment fragments that are smaller than the specified number of megabytes.

It does not do this. If it finds small fragment in the middle of file it defragments also all following fragments even if they are bigger than that limit. So if you don't want to call it broken, how should I call it? Uncompliant?

Yes I believe it's good for files that grow steadily such as databases or log files. There's another class of files though for which it does not work - media files. I'm processing fair amount of video on my computer and use many multi-gigabyte intermediate files which get placed randomly on the disk during their creation. These are formed of fragments of all sizes, from extremely small to extremely long and there's no rule that there will be a big fragment in the beginning and small ones in the end. At present I have no suitable option to handle these files during optimization run but to let MyDefrag to defragment them all completely.

Your disk trashing was random. It had nothing to do with huge optimization. A Disk Lifespan of 3 Years is okay. After that, you will upgrate it... Keeping the computer optimized can be a better benefit instead of watching that the drive doesnt move files...

Yes I agree that it was random and it was not caused by whatever software I was using at that time. The only thing I want to point out is, that if that happened at random point and random operation and that operation was done during disk optimization in both cases, it means there's relatively high ratio of disk operations related to disk optimization compared to ratio of disk operations related to other normal computer usage.

For comparison, there were two other disks that failed in my PCs over last about 10 years - one failed during normal operation and one failed due to power shock from a faulty power supply. If I rule out the broken power supply, it's still 2:1 ratio. Statistically insignificant, I must say, on such a small sample. But yet...

So that's what I'm trying to achieve - keep my disk maybe not perfectly optimized but reasonably close to it, using as few disk operations as possible. MyDefrag looks promising for that purpose thanks to all its features and configuration options, that's why I'm using it.

[quanthero]

Kasuha, have you considered partitioning your disks into several partitions? This may really help in organizing the data.

[BloodySword]

@Kasuha:

Do you use Superfetch? If yes, it will wear your disk out more than MyDefrag would even when you run monthly script everyday.

[quanthero]

So you use Superfetch? If yes, it will wear your disk out more than MyDefrag would even when you run monthly script everyday.

I personally don't think Superfetch will wear out disk quickly. I am using Superfetch here (Toshiba laptop with 2GB RAM), and my hard disk is fine.

[Darlis]

@BloodySword: You have to distinguish between Vista's SuperFetch and 7's SuperFetch. The latter is way better. 

[BloodySword]

Yes. But Superfetch on 7 will also use the disk much, because Superfetch won't work at all without excessive disk access. But it won't wear out the disk like Vista's Superfetch.

[quanthero]

Vista superfetch says: "I am going to cache everything I can find."
7 superfetch says: "I am only going to cache only the most important stuff that is used very often."
In my opinion, Superfetch in Windows 7 (not in Vista) may actually extend hard drive life. The reason is that a lot of stuff will be cached to RAM, so hard drive will not have to be accessed very often.