Automatic Background Defragmentation: Why to consider it?

[ektorbarajas]

Hi Jeroen & all the community.

I'm aware that you are not in favor of automatic background & constant defragmentation.

But I've found this interesting article from diskeeper:

http://www.diskeeper.com/diskeeper/myths/hard-drive-wear.asp

According to this article, it's better to have a background defragmentation process always running and it will not wear out your HD.

Maybe that's written in a way to favor diskeeper automatic background defragmentation. But the principle looks right for me.

So, my suggestion is to consider implementing in a future version an automatic background defragmentation, my suggestion to do so:

Let JKdefrag run as a windows service, in order for it to run as soon as the computer is on, even if no user is logged.

Implement some routine so that jkdefrag can "sense" the HD activity and CPU usage, so that automatic background defragmenation runs silently without impacting performance.

Let this option to be configured by the user, giving one default option that seeks low cpu usage & low HD usage, but letting the users configure the automatic background defragmentation in a more aggressive way

And finally, let the automatic defragmentation as an option, so the users can enable or disable.

That's my 50 cents.

Best regards

[JDPower]

Hi Jeroen & all the community.

I'm aware that you are not in favor of automatic background & constant defragmentation.

But I've found this interesting article from diskeeper:

http://www.diskeeper.com/diskeeper/myths/hard-drive-wear.asp

Well they would say that wouldn't they. I'm not saying its not true but it's not exactly an unbiased article as it's in their own interest for people to believe it.

[schitzn]

Hard drives are a constantly changing surface.  Windows and software that runs under Windows reads/writes temporary files like there is no tomorrow.

Automatic Background Defrag has more overhead than benefits, especially when comparing to say JKDefrag Screensaver or a Schedueled Task.

-> Uses memory/cpu cycles to constantly check CPU usage to identify if its okay to start

and if its okay to start then...

-> Needs to keep the drive map updated BEFORE resuming defragging to allow for any changes to the file system, two possible ways of this:

 - Reload the Diskmap of the drive

 - or/ hook file open/write/read/close api to analyse any realtime changes to the file system.


Both of these methods add overhead to cpu/disk utilization, before even a defrag algorithm can commence operating on the drive.  The disk in my opinion will suffer more wear by having a background process constantly analysing and shuffling it, when compared to doing a single swift pass on a regular basis.  The CPU usage will to some degree cause a lag in performance at some point, or, cause wear to your CPU if you want to be so fanatical like DiskKeeper.

I dont like DiskKeeper for two reasons.
1. Their CEO is a scientologist (this is a business not a religion), and I believe their corpoprate strategy is the same as the Scientology's, Pyramid Selling scheme, Bias towards their own goals, and heavy handed to critism.  

2. Their high royalty payouts have created bias in the non-bias community to recommending this software, when in fact it is not being recommended fairly or on the basis of merit.  JKDefrag is free, fast and effective, and in my opinion supercedes all others. (ie. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/OptimizeXP.html - Brilliant Software Website, only bias is towards DiskKeeper, which he resells)

[jarvis]

Personally I have Diskeeper 2007 for my laptop and use JKDefrag for quick optimizations of other people's PCs if I'm helping them.

I think it's different tools for different situations.  I tried PerfectDisk and found it was a good product and I would have chosen it over Diskeeper if I was using a desktop and didn't mind leaving it on overnight to do the defrag.  This is because PD version 7 had no CPU or disk throttling nor selectable run priority and really bogged down the system when defragging.  But it does do a very thorough consolidation of free space if that's what you're after, and orders the files so as to speed up future defragmentation.

On the other hand, Diskeeper 8 through 10 had scheduling options like SmartSchedule and Screensaver that were more suitable for a system like a laptop that is not always left on.  And now, you don't even have to think about scheduling.  Auto-defrag is not bogging down my system in any way, thanks!  However, their large array of different versions at different prices are confusing and a bit greedy.

I've always found the "propaganda" white papers over at Raxco.com worse than those at diskeeper.com - Raxco aim their papers to directly smear the competition, massaging the results to suit their purpose.  Criticizing "multi-pass" defragmentation as inherently bad when in fact multi-pass goes straight for the fragmentation first, then consolidation/optimization.  But Raxco want's you to think that "multi-pass" MEANS you have to run the defragger over and over to get anywhere.  This was true with Diskeeper 7 and earlier, I can attest but it is no longer the case and was never the MEANING of multi-pass.

PS. Scientology is a cult, not a religion IMO!

[ektorbarajas]

I must say that after reading that link from Diskeeper, I decided to try diskeeper pro premier version 11 (in the past I tried version 9 & 10 and I
was really disappointed)

So based on my short testing I can say the following:

The InvisiTasking technology is outstanding!, it constantly monitor for idle resources without bloating the system or adding CPU & HDD cycles and activity. It really senses the resources without interfering at all!.

And it indeed defrag all hard disks (and even USB flash & HDD) in the background without interfering.

Right now I really noticed a bit performance boost.

Also I must say that the drives are defragged and all is done automatically.

I believe in what that link I posted before said, it's logical.

And it's a fact that Raxco white papers only attacks the competitors (specially Diskeeper), and for what I've read, the diskeeper white papers are more technically and well explained.

Now that I've tried diskeeper pro premier I must say that the concept of background defragmentation seems good, but it's a fact that diskeeper products are OVERPRICED.

I respect Jeroen decision over jkdefrag and automatic background defragmentation, but it would be nice that jkdefrag has an option to do that.

Last but not least. I must say that the defragmentation approach of jkdefrag and diskeeper is almost the same, and that's good since both techniques really optimize the system and not just defragment it.

[jeroen]

But I've found this interesting article from diskeeper:

Thanks for the link, I appreciate it! That's a cleverly contrived little bit of math there.

1. The example only talks about defragmentation, not about optimization. If I change just a single file on a perfectly sorted disk, then optimization has to shift all files above that file up, or down. Gigabytes of disk activity.

2. The example calculates the overhead of one-time defragmentation, not the overhead caused by continuous (immediate) defragmentation. Which is much higher.

3. The example does not point out there is a break-even point, where defragmentation indeed causes more wear and tear than it prevents.

Continuous defragmentation and optimization is like cleaning your house by running around all day long with a dustmop, cleaning away every speck of dust as it falls. I'm not an expert on cleaning and I don't have hard data, but I'm pretty sure it's more efficient to dust just once per day.

[JDPower]

I'm not an expert on cleaning and I don't have hard data...

LOL

[ektorbarajas]

Jeroen, your 3 points explanation really has a point, indeed diskeeper article only talks about defragmentation and not about optimization.

In one of my posts:

http://www.kessels.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=367&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=1990

I explained that I liked to run JKdefrag at boot time & when my computer is idle.

And it seems to be the way to go if one wants to achieve a similar strategy like diskeeper automatic bg defragmentation.

Once again thanks Jeroen