Diskeeper Software

[sapper]

I just got my new toy a x60s

It is just the latest in a series of Thinkpads I have had. So far so good.

Before I install my applications and customize it I wanted to defragment the drive and that is where I ran into a problem. The diskeeper software does not want to do anything and even when disabled it intercepts the XP defragmentation utility. Has anyone else run into this problem? What was your solution?

Thanks

[Kyocera]

I didn't even think twice, uninstalled it immediately.

Welcome to the block.

[Talon88]

:::

Oh, What's wrong with Diskeeper?
Please tell us! I have no problem with
it, it's OK & fast....!

:::

I didn't even think twice, uninstalled it immediately.

Welcome to the block.

[Kyocera]

Didn't say there was anything wrong with it, windows defrag works fine.

[cj3209]

I just found it so annoying b/c of the constant push to upgrade to the 'more advanced' version which, of course, you have to pay for.

I un-install it asap on all our machines.

cj

:::

Oh, What's wrong with Diskeeper?
Please tell us! I have no problem with
it, it's OK & fast....!

:::

I didn't even think twice, uninstalled it immediately.

Welcome to the block.

[davidspalding]

DisKeeper offers little value IMHO now that XP has a built-in defrag => DFRG.MSC, or DEFRAG from the command line. I wrote a batch file which automates various defragging from the command line.

To defrag your pagefile and registry, download a freeware app from Sysinternals.com called PAGEDFRG. It's a must-have.

[whitney]

DisKeeper offers little value IMHO now that XP has a built-in defrag => DFRG.MSC, or DEFRAG from the command line. I wrote a batch file which automates various defragging from the command line.

To defrag your pagefile and registry, download a freeware app from Sysinternals.com called PAGEDFRG. It's a must-have.

The "built-in" defragger in XP Pro is a "lite version of Diskeeper" without the GUI. Since XP Pro's into, Diskeeper has gone through more than 4 to 5 revisions.

Diskeeper Pro/Enterprise is now at version 10.

Diskeeper is the best defrag algos...it works. Version 10 has the benefit of working in background "better than their previous stealth background defrags" and it's fast and unobtrusive, and it's a great background program that continuously defrags your drives--in real time without a pause or hitch.

I too would blast the Diskeeper provided by Lenovo. I'd substitute it with the Pro/enterpise version that is what I use on every computer I own: Version: 10.0.593.0...

Have been using Diskeeper since version 6.

P.S....Diskeeper will allow you to defrag the master boot file, MBF, upon system start. With all due respect, defragging a page file is an exercise that I don't worry about; if you want to speed your system, create a partition in the innermost "inside" of that hard drive totally dedicated to that function: the page file, and turn off ALL other page files on any other partitions or drives in that system.

The most important thing about the page file is to look at the XP program resident in XP: Windows Task Manager and determine what the memory load is during the course of your use.

If your system memory never exceeds the "Commit charge...peak" in the Windows task manager screen, then you have enough memory and you're guaranteed that your system isn't addressing your hard drive: "virtual memory" that is a real slowing event that affects your system.

Google the terms to direct your fingers to these imbedded XP Programs. They are explained in Windows XP Inside Out, too.

Amazon has had it on their site forever.

[jjesusfreak01]

PerfectDisc is my choice. I spent a little while researching them, and settled on PD because it seems to do a better job the first time, rather than the second or third time.

[ambientscape]

PerfectDisc is my choice. I spent a little while researching them, and settled on PD because it seems to do a better job the first time, rather than the second or third time.

Another satisfied PerfectDisk user!!

[davidspalding]

Well, I could've clarified that the Windows defrag utility is free, on the system, without having to register a more potent solution. If you're more aggressive about your minute-to-minute fragmentation (granted some systems really need this), a licensed app is certainly reasonable.

I agree with your comments about the pagefile, mine is rarely in more than 2 pieces. Having it on a separate partition on the primary drive (not the system partition) is a new wrinkle that sounds intriguing.

[jamess]

I wrote a batch file which automates various defragging from the command line.

Is this batch file of yours very unique or would it be possible for me to adapt it to run on X60s as well? Would it be possible for your to share this "winXP auto defrag batch command/file", please?

I dislike having extra software on my computer if integrated xp stuff is sufficient, that's why i uninstalled diskeeper-lite.

cheers

[DIGITALgimpus]

I use diskeeper light, but keep the service disabled until I use it.

When I want to defrag I enter:
net start diskeeper

Then use the defrag ui.

Keeps one unnecessary process that only nags you under control... and lets you have a newer version of the one that came with XP.

[davidspalding]

Is this batch file of yours very unique or would it be possible for me to adapt it to run on X60s as well? Would it be possible for your to share this "winXP auto defrag batch command/file", please?

You'll be sorry you asked...

"P:\ipswitch\WSPingPR\wspingpr.exe" -settime ntps1-2.uni-erlangen.de
@echo off

net stop "norton ghost"

cleanmgr.exe /sagerun:2
: SageSet 2 doesn't clear the recycle bin

if not exist s:\nul goto :dfrg

:firefox and other file backups
echo.
echo ...
echo ... Selective backup of files
echo ...
echo.

xcopy /M /Q /O /Y /v "U:\Documents and Settings\david\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\8nwljry1.default\bookmarks.html" "s:\backups and archives"
xcopy /M /Q /O /Y /v l:\files\PASSWORD.DOC "s:\backups and archives"
xcopy /M /Q /O /Y "L:\outlook\spalding.pst" "s:\backups and archives\Outlook"
: and any other files you might want backed up

"c:\windows\system32\contig.exe" -s -q "U:\Documents and Settings\david\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\*.*"


echo .
echo ... Defragging Outlook .PST File.
echo ...
echo.
if not exist "L:\outlook\*.bak" goto :nooutlookbackups
move /Y "L:\outlook\*.bak" "s:\backups and archives\Outlook"
:nooutlookbackups
echo.
echo ...
echo ... Defragging outlook PST file....
echo ...
"c:\windows\system32\contig.exe" -v "L:\outlook\spalding.pst"

:dfrg
rem start dfrg.msc
echo.
echo ...
echo ... Defragging hard drives ...
echo ...
echo.

: Windows 2000 partition
: "c:\windows\system32\contig.exe" -s -q c:\winnt\shelliconcache
"c:\windows\system32\contig.exe" -s -q c:\*.log
"c:\windows\system32\contig.exe" -s -q c:\*.dll
"c:\windows\system32\contig.exe" -s -q "c:\program files\*.*"
"c:\windows\system32\contig.exe" -s -q c:\windows\system32\*.*



echo. > c:\defragresults.txt
echo D E F R A G . B A T R E P O R T >> c:\defragresults.txt
echo. >> c:\defragresults.txt
echo STARTED %date% %time% >> c:\defragresults.txt
echo. >> c:\defragresults.txt
echo. >> c:\defragresults.txt

echo C V O L U M E >> c:\defragresults.txt
ECHO __________________
echo. >> c:\defragresults.txt
echo. >> c:\defragresults.txt
: defrag.exe c: -b
: echo. >> c:\defragresults.txt
: echo. >> c:\defragresults.txt
defrag.exe c: -f -v >> c:\defragresults.txt
echo. >> c:\defragresults.txt
echo. >> c:\defragresults.txt



:pagedfrg
c:\windows\system32\pagedfrg.exe -o

echo.
echo ...
echo ... Done! Preparing report...
echo ...
echo.
echo. >> c:\defragresults.txt
echo. >> c:\defragresults.txt
echo COMPLETED %date% %time% >> c:\defragresults.txt
echo. >> c:\defragresults.txt
echo. >> c:\defragresults.txt
Echo ... Norton Ghost restarted...
echo. >> c:\defragresults.txt
echo. >> c:\defragresults.txt
net start "norton ghost" >> c:\defragresults.txt
sleep 15
start c:\defragresults.txt

sleep 900
:exit

[jamess]

indeed

[wayrad]

I've been testing the demo version of PerfectDisk on my z60m. Compared to Diskeeper Lite, it seems slow (not a problem for me, if it does a better job), and I don't care for the interface (again, not a problem if...). The thing that is confusing me, though, is that when I defragged for the first time with PerfectDisk and later analyzed with Diskeeper Lite, it showed an increase in fragmentation. This doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the way one or both of these programs detects fragmentation. Can anyone clarify this situation for me?

[mhca]

I've been testing the demo version of PerfectDisk on my z60m. Compared to Diskeeper Lite, it seems slow (not a problem for me, if it does a better job), and I don't care for the interface (again, not a problem if...). The thing that is confusing me, though, is that when I defragged for the first time with PerfectDisk and later analyzed with Diskeeper Lite, it showed an increase in fragmentation. This doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the way one or both of these programs detects fragmentation. Can anyone clarify this situation for me?

Experienced somewhat similar with PerfectDisc and analyzing with Windows XP defrag utility

[DIGITALgimpus]

I've been testing the demo version of PerfectDisk on my z60m. Compared to Diskeeper Lite, it seems slow (not a problem for me, if it does a better job), and I don't care for the interface (again, not a problem if...). The thing that is confusing me, though, is that when I defragged for the first time with PerfectDisk and later analyzed with Diskeeper Lite, it showed an increase in fragmentation. This doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the way one or both of these programs detects fragmentation. Can anyone clarify this situation for me?

It all depends on your definition of defrag. According to the built in windows defrag (an old version of diskeeper) your disk is defragged. Run Diskeeper 10 on it.. and you have serious fragmentation.

This is the same for all products. They calculate it differently, and use different solutions.

[wayrad]

This is the same for all products. They calculate it differently, and use different solutions.

Well, I assumed it was a difference in how it was calculated, but why should there be such a difference? I'm probably being naive, but either a file's in one piece or it isn't, right? And is there any way to figure out how things are being weighted/prioritized to give the different results, with an eye to figuring out which is "best"? A benchmarking utility, perhaps?

[davidspalding]

I trust Sysinternals' CONTIG. The author doesn't have a vested interest in telling me my drive ISN'T defragged when it is.

[DIGITALgimpus]

Well, I assumed it was a difference in how it was calculated, but why should there be such a difference? I'm probably being naive, but either a file's in one piece or it isn't, right? And is there any way to figure out how things are being weighted/prioritized to give the different results, with an eye to figuring out which is "best"? A benchmarking utility, perhaps?

Define "defragged". Being 1 piece is only a small part of the defrag process. It's keeping them defraged for long term. That means stratigic positioning. The method of doing that is highly disputed. What's more efficient? Generally depends on usage patterns.

If you defragged a computer by just making files continuous, it wouldn't be much faster, because after you browse the web for 10 minutes, with files expiring in cache, and new files being created... you'd be right back where you started.

[DIGITALgimpus]

I trust Sysinternals' CONTIG. The author doesn't have a vested interest in telling me my drive ISN'T defragged when it is.

You do know they are [url=http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2006/0 ... tmlworking for MS[/url] now right?

[davidspalding]

Bummer. I can hope for the best, but doubt that the freeware utilities will last forever. As someone posted, "please validate your Windows installation before downloading" can't be too far behind.

Define "defragged". Being 1 piece is only a small part of the defrag process. It's keeping them defraged for long term. That means stratigic positioning. The method of doing that is highly disputed. What's more efficient? Generally depends on usage patterns.

Not following you down this rabbit hole. I don't use CONTIG to tell me the drive is defragged, btw, just certain files. But earlier someone mentioned that WinXP's defrag would declare a drive 0% fragmentation, then another app claim that the drive was fragmented. Now ... come on, already. Your definition doesn't really mean "fragmented" so much as "optimized," and for that I agree that a more robust solution is called for. I think the MS version only defrags, and the asynchronous optimization service does the latter.

CMD-line "defrag" has an undocumented -b switch which apparently does this, but I haven't found anything that confirms or denies that the switch is the equivalent of what TweakUI calls "Optimize hard disk when idle."

[DIGITALgimpus]

If you just put files together, it's pointless, and just overworks the drive, it will refragment extremely fast. That's where the myth of "defragmenting is bad" originally came from.

The difference you see is the difference between the methods used by various products to achive true defragmentation (one that will last a while).

Just putting files together is pointless, and a waste of time... it will refragment quickly, so your just working your disk extra hard. It's when you do it so that it lasts for a while that you gain real performance, and actually safe your disk some work. That's where the money is.

[wayrad]

OK, I think I see -- so defragmentation can be achieved at various levels (file level, level of whatever group of files somebody thinks you would want to access at around the same time, etc.), and the "whatever somebody thinks" bit is what causes the observed differences on the reports provided by different apps. Thanks to everyone who answered!

Not sure I'm any farther forward in picking which one to use though. Diskeeper Lite is free, of course, but since I'm doing weekly housekeeping on five other computers besides my Thinkpad, the automatic background defragging features of the full Diskeeper version would lessen the drudgery slightly.

[krosenstein]

if you want to speed your system, create a partition in the innermost "inside" of that hard drive totally dedicated to that function: the page file, and turn off ALL other page files on any other partitions or drives in that system.

Intriguing indeed.

How do you create a partition in the "innermost 'inside'" of a drive?

[DIGITALgimpus]

OK, I think I see -- so defragmentation can be achieved at various levels (file level, level of whatever group of files somebody thinks you would want to access at around the same time, etc.), and the "whatever somebody thinks" bit is what causes the observed differences on the reports provided by different apps. Thanks to everyone who answered!

Not sure I'm any farther forward in picking which one to use though. Diskeeper Lite is free, of course, but since I'm doing weekly housekeeping on five other computers besides my Thinkpad, the automatic background defragging features of the full Diskeeper version would lessen the drudgery slightly.

It's always done at the file level... the trickery is defragmenting them in the right location. Move part B of file X to be next to part A? Or move part A next to part B? Both defrag, but 1 may be better than the other.

Then there's also the issue of what files they can/can't touch. Some defrag software is much more aggressive and will play with NTFS to move files in use... some will only do that to certain files. Some won't do that at all.

Personally I'm still using Diskeeper Lite. I may go pro once 11.0 (rumored to be by the end of the year) ships.