PC utilities forum: Windows Vista Defrag vs 3rd Party Defrag Software

I defrag 2-3 times per week just out of personal preference figuring that it can't hurt. Even though the Windows message says that my sysetm is ok and dosen't need to be defraged.
Just a habit I guess.
Altoid666

Over the years I used windows and thirdparty. I alternate between both.

The reason is the algarythms are somtimes different causing a virtual reformat by moving data to new location on disk (rewrite),

FORMAT gives a fresh image also and rewrites the Disk Fault table, sectors do go bad with time. Bad/soft sectors(loss of magnetism) can cause data and/or format loss.

DEFRAG only refreshes the data Image and directory table only. Defrag will kill use of File recover operations

Defrag rewrite might use the bad sectors that have shown up since last format with defect table rewrite, causing the software to stop working when moved.

According to the Windows 7 blog:
"In Vista, we analyzed the impact of defragmentation and determined that the most significant performance gains from defrag are when pieces of files are combined into sufficiently large chunks such that the impact of disk-seek latency is not significant relative to the latency associated with sequentially reading the file. This means that there is a point after which combining fragmented pieces of files has no discernible benefit. In fact, there are actually negative consequences of doing so. For example, for defrag to combine fragments that are 64MB or larger requires significant amounts of disk I/O, which is against the principle of minimizing I/O that we discussed earlier (since it decreases total available disk bandwidth for user initiated I/O), and puts more pressure on the system to find large, contiguous blocks of free space. Here is a scenario where a certainly amount of fragmentation of data is just fine doing nothing to decrease this fragmentation turns out to be the right answer!"

Essentially, unless you're working with video or some other highly HDD-intensive activity, Windows and improvements in HDD technology are enough to made defragging a non-issue.

My understanding is that it is better to use the Windows version as it has a better understanding of the correct file system for itself than a third party defrag would. I use it on all the machines I look after and I have always found it efficient.

First: The need to defrag 'frequently' is totally dependent on whether you do a lot of installs, uninstalls, picture/video uploads/downloads ... ie: lots of adding, updating and/or deleting of files = defrag needed more often.

Second: It is also dependent on whether your disk directory uses the older FAT (MS-DOS File Access Table) structure or the newer NTFS (Windows-NT File Structure) ... right click the drive, click properties, look at the general tabs 'File system:' to see what you have if you don't know. Also note, both types can, and often do, exist on one PC and even on one hard drive now days (ie: Drive 1, partition "C:/" might be FAT while drive 1, partition "D:/" could be NTFS). Lots of Windows-XP machines were/are configured by the vendors to have both FAT & NTFS directories as having some FAT space allows them to use older software/drivers.

Within limits, NTFS directories 'self defrag' on the fly. FAT directories NEVER do. Both directories can stand being defragged after lots of file updates (ie: after a windows 'service pack' is installed and tested), but FAT disk directories need defragging more often ... still typically only monthly for most users.

MS Windows defrag utility works fine (slow, pretty safe, and FREE). Several other products are faster (but at a cost usually). I use MS Win-XP defrag and "AusLogics Disk Defrag" (also free) alternating between them as I figure (for some unknown reason) that each has their own defrag formula so I may get the best of both so to speak.

Notes:
1. Defrag utilities need to know where everything is on the disk drive to work. They (especially MS Windows defrag) can get confused/hung up by anti-virus/spy/adware utilities that check every file that is opened since they usually 'log' the fact that they checked the file ... which causes a directory update ... which causes the defrag routine to restart ... which causes another log update ... which causes the defrag to restart again ... and on, and on.
2. Thus: It is best if you physically disconnect from the internet (ie: power off your modem/wireless hub and/or unplug your DSL/cable/Ethernet connection) and then shut down your anti-virus/spy/adware checkers before defragging.
3. Defraggers need disk space to work (ie: 10-15% of your hard drive must be 'available/free'), so backup and/or delete what you can before you start your defrag utility.
4. Then: Start your defrag and leave the PC alone until it finishes. Defragging really works your system in very critical areas and if your PC crashes, etc., during a defrag, you can loose everything on the hard drive.
5. Todays hard drives have good life expectancy and occasional defragging will not hurt them. Unnecessary defragging will add some wear to them, of course.
6. Thus, as always, make backups of important files.

Good Luck,

Goodtime Charlie, VA

I got into the defrag habit when I found it necessary to resize partitions for various reasons; mostly to install Linux. NTFS leaves data scattered all over the disk space such that it is often impossible to resize a Windows partition using the Windows disk management software.

One issue is the User Journal files (USRJRNL) that NTFS uses as a log of disk changes; these files are marked as unmovable and are not removed automatically. One has to manually delete them using the FSutil program.

Virtual memory files are also unmovable. I turn off the virtual memory before defragging.

Shadow copies are also unmovable. I've turned off the Microsoft System Restore Function and use Erunt to back up my files to an alternative partition.

For commercial software, PerfectDisk's smart defrag works well. It's just a little pricey for my taste. By the way, Windows Defrag has other options that can be accessed via command line which provides more comprehensive defragging.

While I have not been keeping detailed data, a properly defragged drive seems to run faster. This would be logical as your files are contiguous rather than scattered promiscuously across the disk.

Defraggers seem to run along two general philosophies. One is to sort the files by date or date last modified. The second is to puch Windows & software files to the front. One can argue the merits of either. The point is you need to defrag completely if you're going to reduce the size of a partition using Vista software. Outside of changing partitions, I generally agree; Defragging is not needed like it was in the bad old days of Win 95 or 98.

There are, of course, non-MS partition managers, especially from the Linux community. Vista screams bloody murder if you change partition sizes with something other than M$ software but will eventually run.