No defragging if no need

[Lucas Malor]

I suggest to add an option to not defrag an hard disk, if it's "fragmentation level" is less than X%. I think it could be calculated confronting the size of the fragmented file with the total occupied size.

PS: I think it's a good idea to not include in this calculation a file in the free space area at the top of the disk, freed by JkDefrag, if that file is not older than Y hours.

[jeroen]

If you are running JkDefrag every day to determine the "fragmentation level" (whatever that is) then why not allow the program to finish the job, and perform the actual defragmentation? The fast optimization ("-a 3") is designed to be used every day. If there is little to do then it will finish very quickly.

[Lucas Malor]

Well, because actually I use the screensaver mode ;-)

I think it's better a calculation of the "fragment level" instead of a minimum time between defrags :-)

[Lucas Malor]

I resume this old thread to discuss a defragging method.

Actually, I don't defrag any more with the screensaver mode. I simply control when disk is too much fragmented with Windows defrag, and so I start JKDefrag.

Furthermore, I empty the recycle bin only when the disk is full! This could be a problem for some application as p2p clients, and will slow down a bit the system. But I think it stress very much less the hard disks. I don't have very much privacy problems... ^_^

Finally, I checked the web for some suggestion about partitioning for better performance and less defragging, and I think the best methos is: one partition for Windows OS and pagefile, and one partition for programs and accounts data (optionally, another partition only for programs).

Anyway, I think it's a good feature if JKDefrag calculate if the defrag is necessary, or if it will be only a waste of time and a stress for hd.

[Astroman]

one partition for Windows OS and pagefile, and one partition for programs and accounts data (optionally, another partition only for programs)
Anyway, I think it's a good feature if JKDefrag calculate if the defrag is necessary, or if it will be only a waste of time and a stress for hd.

Although I have read this too, I don't think have multiple partitions on the disk is actually a good idea, IF you ware wanting performance.  Since the first part of the disk is the fastests, putting partitions on the drive, will put the data closer and closer to the end of the drive.  If you hard drive is not defragmented and optimized on a regular basis. You are actually putting more stress on the drive in the long run. As the hard drive must then go searching over the disk to find files and applications, some of which are split up and scarttered across the drive (fragmentation) the disk has to work harder to put all the bits back together.  This is when the files should have been closer together.  So ideally I believe that defragmenting/optimizing is very important and will extend the life of your drive.  Even if you do it once a day, where file moving would be minimal.

[Lucas Malor]

It's true, but you must consider the gap is only some hundreds of megabytes, if you do a good install and you make only a partition for OS and another for the rest. And in this way paging file will be at the top of the HD. It's the Linux method (well, Linux support it very much better, of course...)

I think it's also a good idea to have another HD for download, temporary and log files. So you'll have an HD with an high rate of fragments, and you can defrag files more quickly and defrag the other HD less frequently.

[JDPower]

Although I have read this too, I don't think have multiple partitions on the disk is actually a good idea, IF you ware wanting performance.  Since the first part of the disk is the fastests, putting partitions on the drive, will put the data closer and closer to the end of the drive.  If you hard drive is not defragmented and optimized on a regular basis. You are actually putting more stress on the drive in the long run. As the hard drive must then go searching over the disk to find files and applications, some of which are split up and scarttered across the drive

I agree for the most part. I think any more than two partitions is generally unnecessary. I have one partition for Windows and programs which is just big enough for the data on it, so less distance for disk head to travel to second partition, which contains 'My Documents'

[WHRoeder]

I agree for the most part. I think any more than two partitions is generally unnecessary. I have one partition for Windows and programs which is just big enough for the data on it, so less distance for disk head to travel to second partition, which contains 'My Documents'

Windows contains a lot of unused files.  If you enable timestamps on vista, or use xp and only have one partition then the unused OS files will be moved to the spacehogs area and your 'My Documents' will be even closer to the fast part of the disk.

[JDPower]

Windows contains a lot of unused files.  If you enable timestamps on vista, or use xp and only have one partition then the unused OS files will be moved to the spacehogs area and your 'My Documents' will be even closer to the fast part of the disk.

Yeah I understand that but my 'My documents' doesn't get accessed that often so I'm quite happy with a slight drop in speed for the sake of keeping important stuff on a separate partition if Windows crashes.

[cquinn]

Sometimes keeping infrequently used or specialty data on a seperate partition can be a good idea. 
For instance on my laptop I keep a seperate partition for backup files and video files that I am likely to watch once and then delete.  Those types of files would "get in the way" of the files I want in more regular use or to have optimized on the system partiton. 

If I regularly defragment all the partitions then I  also have the option of choosing a different method of defrag/optimization that is more appropriate to how I use and plan to access the files on each partition.   

Partitioning is only part of an overall file organizing strategy,  consider that OSes like unix/linux have long maintained a structure that seperates boot, system, user and swap files for better management of system resources.  Three or four well maintained but seperate partitions is still going to put much less stress on the system than one large unmaintained space.

[jeroen]

Anyway, I think it's a good feature if JKDefrag calculate if the defrag is necessary, or if it will be only a waste of time and a stress for hd.

Defragmentation and optimizing will not only make a harddisk faster, but also lengthen it's life span. The disk will have less work to do and therefore have less wear and tear. Secondly, the sorting optimization strategies (see the "-a" option) will refresh all the magnetic data on your harddisk. However, defragmenting and optimizing is work, so excessive defragmenting and optimizing can actually cause more wear and tear than it prevents. JkDefrag is therefore set for "fast" optimization by default, intended to be used on a daily basis. The other optimizations should only be used occasionally. A calculation would be useful for those, but not for the default "-a 3".

[jeroen]

OSes like unix/linux have long maintained a structure that seperates boot, system, user and swap files for better management of system resources.

I think all the (major) Linux distributions in the last few years have by default only 2 partitions, a swap partition and a partition for everything else.

Three or four well maintained but seperate partitions is still going to put much less stress on the system than one large unmaintained space.

I have to agree that "well maintained" multiple partitions are better than a single "unmainted" partition. But even better would be a "well maintained" single partition.

As previous posters have said, it will cause the harddisk heads to move much longer distances as compared to when all data is optimized at the beginning of the disk. It's a good idea to put all data in a second partition, just in case the system partition gets corrupted, but from a performance point of view a single partition is definitely faster.

[avergison]

Jeroen,

A possibly variant on "no defragging if no need" is NOT to move a file if the travel distance is too short. This could apply to Zone 3 spacehogs in particular.

For instance, I have many video AVI files with sizes from 500-5,000 MB, what is the benefit of moving such files from cluster location say 50,000,000 to 48,000,000, every day again and again ? It just takes up time. They should be left alone.

Thanks,
Andre

[jeroen]

A possibly variant on "no defragging if no need" is NOT to move a file if the travel distance is too short.

With the default "-a 3" fast optimization files will only be moved if they are fragmented, if they are in the wrong zone, or to fill gaps. Most of the files will be left alone where they are. From your description that your files are always moved, I gather that you are using one of the "-a 7" to "-a 11" sorting optimization. You are ofcourse free to do so, but this is not advised. Only the "-a 3" optimization is intended for daily use.

Your suggestion does have merit, though. I have it on my list already for v4 of JkDefrag to build in some kind of hysteresis, like with a thermostat where the furnace is turned on at 19 degrees and off at 22 degrees.