Guest Twayne Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag > In article <3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02>, someone@somewhere.com > says... >> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. >> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data >> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover >> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and >> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is >> together. >> >> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you >> should use both tools. >> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it >> matter? Can one tool undermine the other? > > Actually, the pointers remain, that's how the file system works, each > cluster points to the next in line for the file to continue. > > What Defrag attempts to do is make the FILE contiguous so that the r/w > heads don't waste time seeking across disk space without reading. > > Fragmented file (F = File) . = some other file > FFF...F......FFFFFFFFF.....FFFF > > Defragmented > ....FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF....... > > Defragmenting does not always include PACKING the files against each > other. Also true; and that's another method of minimizing frequency of degrags too.
Guest Twayne Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag > What extra unwanted baggage comes with Speed Disk? > > > > JCO wrote: >> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. >> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data >> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover >> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and >> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is >> together. >> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you >> should use both tools. >> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it >> matter? Can one tool undermine the other? >> >> Thanks Not sure what you mean; none that I know of. But Speed Disk isn't I don't think, availalble as a standalone. It's part of several other packages that make up Norton, namely SystemWorks.
Guest JS Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag I think one thing all defrag software, (speed disk included) is that they all use Microsoft's MoveFile.api which limits to some extent what this type of software can do. Windows built in defrag software is based on Diskeeper's software. Speed disk lost a lot of functionality about two or 3 years after Windows XP was released, as they where either forced or chose to use the MoveFile.api JS "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:%23%23ejjoOzIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. >> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data >> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover >> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and >> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is >> together. >> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you >> should use both tools. >> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it >> matter? Can one tool undermine the other? >> >> Thanks > > Since they use two different methodologies, each will cause the other to > have a lot of defrag work to do. In general, in my case at least, I've > found that Speed Disk gives me the longest lasting tiem between needs to > defrag. Run defrag multiple times and the latter times will go quickly; > same with speed disk. Run one then the other and you'll be waiting every > single time. > > IF you have speed disk and it works well for you, especially if you use > any of its most useful features that defrag doesn't have, you're ahead of > the game. If you're "just a user" then it's not going to matter much. > > But, pick one and stay with it. > > HTH > >
Guest John John (MVP) Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag Leythos wrote: > I'm not really arguing with you, but what happens to the MFT when you > delete a partition and it's the ONLY partition on a disk? > > The reason I ask is that I've had a Drive improperly managed and a new > admin broke the array (soft) and then deleted the partitions, didn't > format, just deleted the partitions - so, it showed the entire drive as > unused. I was able to use an old program called Undelete to recover all > the files - although they were named recoveredfile001. (and proper > extension). > > I'm just wondering - that's all. When you delete partitions the entries are removed from the partition table, the rest of the information is still untouched on the disk. I don't know all that much about recovery software but I think that in that case it would look or scan for the partition boot sector(s) on the drive and from the boot sector it would find the information necessary to rebuild the partition table. John
Guest Terry R. Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag The date and time was 6/12/2008 5:50 PM, and on a whim, JS pounded out on the keyboard: > I think one thing all defrag software, (speed disk included) > is that they all use Microsoft's MoveFile.api which limits to > some extent what this type of software can do. > > Windows built in defrag software is based on Diskeeper's > software. Speed disk lost a lot of functionality about two > or 3 years after Windows XP was released, as they > where either forced or chose to use the MoveFile.api > > JS > > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:%23%23ejjoOzIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. >>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data >>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover >>> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and >>> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is >>> together. >>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you >>> should use both tools. >>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it >>> matter? Can one tool undermine the other? >>> >>> Thanks >> Since they use two different methodologies, each will cause the other to >> have a lot of defrag work to do. In general, in my case at least, I've >> found that Speed Disk gives me the longest lasting tiem between needs to >> defrag. Run defrag multiple times and the latter times will go quickly; >> same with speed disk. Run one then the other and you'll be waiting every >> single time. >> >> IF you have speed disk and it works well for you, especially if you use >> any of its most useful features that defrag doesn't have, you're ahead of >> the game. If you're "just a user" then it's not going to matter much. >> >> But, pick one and stay with it. >> >> HTH >> >> > > I still use NU 2003 and SD is much more configurable than Defrag. I place all my exe, dll, com, files at the beginning, page files at the end, and optimizing takes very little time because of it. Of course I have my OS's (5) on separate partitions, with data on another and programs on yet another. That way I can use programs on other OS partitions without having to waste space on multiple installs of the program. My OS partitions are 4 to 7 gig, programs partition is 7 gig, and then my data partitions. And it's much quicker making backups. -- Terry R. ***Reply Note*** Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag Twayne wrote: >> What extra unwanted baggage comes with Speed Disk? Norton, in general. :-) >> >> JCO wrote: >>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. >>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data >>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover >>> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and >>> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is >>> together. >>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you >>> should use both tools. >>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it >>> matter? Can one tool undermine the other? >>> >>> Thanks > > Not sure what you mean; none that I know of. But Speed Disk isn't I > don't think, availalble as a standalone. It's part of several other > packages that make up Norton, namely SystemWorks. Well, and THAT is a problem!
Guest JS Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag I use Speed Disk 2006 which has lost some of the nice automatic relocation and optimization features that were listed (using color codes) the lower right, and were once part of earlier versions of speed disk. As mentioned in a earlier post I make use of the Files First, Files Last and Files at End options, The number of entries I've entered in each of these sub-groups is rather long and the order of each entry in the list is important for best results. JS "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message news:%23wRNCkPzIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > The date and time was 6/12/2008 5:50 PM, and on a whim, JS pounded out on > the keyboard: > >> I think one thing all defrag software, (speed disk included) >> is that they all use Microsoft's MoveFile.api which limits to >> some extent what this type of software can do. >> >> Windows built in defrag software is based on Diskeeper's >> software. Speed disk lost a lot of functionality about two >> or 3 years after Windows XP was released, as they >> where either forced or chose to use the MoveFile.api >> >> JS >> >> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >> news:%23%23ejjoOzIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. >>>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data >>>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover >>>> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and >>>> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is >>>> together. >>>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you >>>> should use both tools. >>>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it >>>> matter? Can one tool undermine the other? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>> Since they use two different methodologies, each will cause the other to >>> have a lot of defrag work to do. In general, in my case at least, I've >>> found that Speed Disk gives me the longest lasting tiem between needs to >>> defrag. Run defrag multiple times and the latter times will go quickly; >>> same with speed disk. Run one then the other and you'll be waiting >>> every single time. >>> >>> IF you have speed disk and it works well for you, especially if you use >>> any of its most useful features that defrag doesn't have, you're ahead >>> of the game. If you're "just a user" then it's not going to matter >>> much. >>> >>> But, pick one and stay with it. >>> >>> HTH >>> >>> >> >> > > I still use NU 2003 and SD is much more configurable than Defrag. I place > all my exe, dll, com, files at the beginning, page files at the end, and > optimizing takes very little time because of it. > > Of course I have my OS's (5) on separate partitions, with data on another > and programs on yet another. That way I can use programs on other OS > partitions without having to waste space on multiple installs of the > program. My OS partitions are 4 to 7 gig, programs partition is 7 gig, > and then my data partitions. And it's much quicker making backups. > > -- > Terry R. > > ***Reply Note*** > Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. > Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag John John (MVP) wrote: > Bill in Co. wrote: > >>>> The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, >>>> the >>>> FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters >>>> point to the next cluster. >>> >>> That is how it works with FAT/FAT32, but it doesn't work like that at >>> all >>> with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the >>> MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual >>> cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number >>> to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute. >> >> That sounds like a more sensible and robust approach, since you don't >> have >> to go out and read all the disk clusters to find out where the next one >> is >> (and pray that one of them isn't corrupt, breaking the chain). > > That is not really how it works, (on FAT) the clusters are daisy-chained > in the FAT, the operating system doesn't open successive clusters to > find out where the next one is, it reads that information in the FAT. > The first cluster information for the file is found in the Directory > entry and the other cluster information along with the last cluster is > read from the FAT. In any case, if a cluster in the chain is corrupt > the whole file is usually unreadable or corrupt anyway, chkdsk can > locate and try to repair these bad clusters but most of the time the > recovered clusters are of much use and the corrupt files are not easily, > if at all repairable. > > John OK (and I probably should have known this). But above, I thought you had said that "the file system (in XP) does not need to flip through each individual cluster to find the next one", and I mistakenly thought you were implying that FAT was that way (in contrast with NT). But maybe you're talking about going through the entries within the table itself (FAT or MFT).
Guest PD43 Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >OK (and I probably should have known this). >But above, I thought you had said that "the file system (in XP) does not >need to flip through each individual cluster to find the next one", and I >mistakenly thought you were implying that FAT was that way (in contrast with >NT). But maybe you're talking about going through the entries within the >table itself (FAT or MFT). I think you'd be crippled if your parentheses keys ever stopped working. It'd be like tying an Italian's hands behind his back and then telling him to talk.
Guest John John (MVP) Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag Bill in Co. wrote: > John John (MVP) wrote: > >>Bill in Co. wrote: >> >> >>>>>The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, >>>>>the >>>>>FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters >>>>>point to the next cluster. >>>> >>>>That is how it works with FAT/FAT32, but it doesn't work like that at >>>>all >>>>with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the >>>>MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual >>>>cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number >>>>to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute. >>> >>>That sounds like a more sensible and robust approach, since you don't >>>have >>>to go out and read all the disk clusters to find out where the next one >>>is >>>(and pray that one of them isn't corrupt, breaking the chain). >> >>That is not really how it works, (on FAT) the clusters are daisy-chained >>in the FAT, the operating system doesn't open successive clusters to >>find out where the next one is, it reads that information in the FAT. >>The first cluster information for the file is found in the Directory >>entry and the other cluster information along with the last cluster is >>read from the FAT. In any case, if a cluster in the chain is corrupt >>the whole file is usually unreadable or corrupt anyway, chkdsk can >>locate and try to repair these bad clusters but most of the time the >>recovered clusters are of much use and the corrupt files are not easily, >>if at all repairable. >> >>John > > > OK (and I probably should have known this). > But above, I thought you had said that "the file system (in XP) does not > need to flip through each individual cluster to find the next one" It was in reference to a post by Leytos who said that the FAT only pointed to the first cluster and who suggested that the "chain" was then retrieved from, or that each successive cluster "pointed" to the next cluster in the chain. My reply was in made in that context where I made the point that NTFS doesn't flip through clusters, I wasn't suggesting that FAT did, I was only commenting about NTFS which is the native NT file system. John
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag John John (MVP) wrote: > Bill in Co. wrote: > >> John John (MVP) wrote: >> >>> Bill in Co. wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>> The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, >>>>>> the >>>>>> FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters >>>>>> point to the next cluster. >>>>> >>>>> That is how it works with FAT/FAT32, but it doesn't work like that at >>>>> all >>>>> with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the >>>>> MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual >>>>> cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster >>>>> Number >>>>> to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute. >>>> >>>> That sounds like a more sensible and robust approach, since you don't >>>> have >>>> to go out and read all the disk clusters to find out where the next one >>>> is >>>> (and pray that one of them isn't corrupt, breaking the chain). >>> >>> That is not really how it works, (on FAT) the clusters are daisy-chained >>> in the FAT, the operating system doesn't open successive clusters to >>> find out where the next one is, it reads that information in the FAT. >>> The first cluster information for the file is found in the Directory >>> entry and the other cluster information along with the last cluster is >>> read from the FAT. In any case, if a cluster in the chain is corrupt >>> the whole file is usually unreadable or corrupt anyway, chkdsk can >>> locate and try to repair these bad clusters but most of the time the >>> recovered clusters are of much use and the corrupt files are not easily, >>> if at all repairable. >>> >>> John >> >> >> OK (and I probably should have known this). >> But above, I thought you had said that "the file system (in XP) does not >> need to flip through each individual cluster to find the next one" > > It was in reference to a post by Leytos who said that the FAT only > pointed to the first cluster and who suggested that the "chain" was then > retrieved from, or that each successive cluster "pointed" to the next > cluster in the chain. (although the statement above, as he wrote it, still seems a bit ambiguous to me). > My reply was in made in that context where I made > the point that NTFS doesn't flip through clusters, I wasn't suggesting > that FAT did, I was only commenting about NTFS which is the native NT > file system. > > John I see. I think I got at least some of it now. :-)
Guest JCO Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag I guess we should through Diskeeper in the mix. It lets you do several partitions at the same time as does Speed disk. I don't know which is faster between Speed Disk or Diskeeper (Defrag is definitely the slowest), but if all three have different methodologies as to how to do the task... makes you wonder if defragging is really important. If any of the 3 cause the one of the other two to do more work, then they can't all three be correct. "JS" <@> wrote in message news:#GKZL#OzIHA.3680@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > I think one thing all defrag software, (speed disk included) > is that they all use Microsoft's MoveFile.api which limits to > some extent what this type of software can do. > > Windows built in defrag software is based on Diskeeper's > software. Speed disk lost a lot of functionality about two > or 3 years after Windows XP was released, as they > where either forced or chose to use the MoveFile.api > > JS > > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:%23%23ejjoOzIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. >>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data >>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover >>> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and >>> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is >>> together. >>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you >>> should use both tools. >>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it >>> matter? Can one tool undermine the other? >>> >>> Thanks >> >> Since they use two different methodologies, each will cause the other to >> have a lot of defrag work to do. In general, in my case at least, I've >> found that Speed Disk gives me the longest lasting tiem between needs to >> defrag. Run defrag multiple times and the latter times will go quickly; >> same with speed disk. Run one then the other and you'll be waiting every >> single time. >> >> IF you have speed disk and it works well for you, especially if you use >> any of its most useful features that defrag doesn't have, you're ahead of >> the game. If you're "just a user" then it's not going to matter much. >> >> But, pick one and stay with it. >> >> HTH >> >> > >
Guest Gerry Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag Twayne Isn't Norton System Works extra baggage! Why pay out money for software giving you an overall negative return. Either don't spend any money and use the Microsoft Disk Defragmenter or use your cash to buy a defragmenter that brings with it more tangible benefits. Priorities for my money do not include buying a third party defragmenter. Making proper use of what comes with Windows XP yields perfectly satisfactory results. Many users of third party defragmenters do not take the time to find out how to get the most out of the tools provided with Windows XP. ~~~~ Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Twayne wrote: >> What extra unwanted baggage comes with Speed Disk? >> >> >> >> JCO wrote: >>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. >>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data >>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover >>> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and >>> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is >>> together. >>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you >>> should use both tools. >>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it >>> matter? Can one tool undermine the other? >>> >>> Thanks > > Not sure what you mean; none that I know of. But Speed Disk isn't I > don't think, availalble as a standalone. It's part of several other > packages that make up Norton, namely SystemWorks.
Recommended Posts