Any data or tests on different defrag programs?  Is Norton's
speed disk or PC mechanic's optimized defragger worth the time it takes to complete.  Is Diskkeeper or PerfectDisk any
better?
Thanks for any info.

If on Windows XP, I have found out that Norton Speed Disk and the XP defragger (which is a "super-lite" version of Diskeeper) fight eachother. When Speed Disk has completed a defrag, the XP defragger starts moving things around. They have different opinions of what is the optimum.

When installing Diskeeper, it replaces the XP defragger which makes fighting impossible (if there would be any since they are basically the same).

Any other defragger would be installed in addition to the XP defragger and work "in parallel".

However, if You install Diskeeper Lite (which is freeware and not as "super-lite" as the XP defragger), You can disable the Diskeeper Service and if Norton Speed Disk is installed, keep the Speed Disk Service running > no fighting.

Christer

Quote:

"... If on Windows XP, I have found out that Norton Speed Disk and the XP defragger (which is a "super-lite" version of Diskeeper) fight eachother. When Speed Disk has completed a defrag, the XP defragger starts moving things around. They have different opinions of what is the optimum..." Christer

If I wish to use but one of the above - particularly in grooming a partition for generating a Ghost Image of it - which would you  recommend?

[glb]El Pescador[/glb]

I have test driven Diskkeeper, O & O and Raxco's Perfect Disk.  For me Perfect DIsk is the hands down winner.  Diskkeeper defrags but leaves the files scattered all over the drive.  Perfect disk  organizes the files by frequency of use, and also defrags the free space leaving all the data neatly together on the disk  O & O does have some options on how to organize the files, but as I remember it didn't have one based on how often the file is accessed.   Finally Perfect DIsk was faster.

I always defrag prior to taking a disk image

Pete

I found this interesting article at  O&O website, comparing
O&O with diskeeper and xp defragger.

http://www.oo-software.com/en/products/oodefrag/OODefragV6_WhitePaper.pdf

Interesting that they don't include PerfectDisk in the comparison.   Xp's defragger is a lite version of diskdeeper.

Quote:

If I wish to use but one of the above - particularly in grooming a partition for generating a Ghost Image of it - which would you  recommend?

As a house keeping tool, in preparation for creating an Image, I think that the XP defragger is good enough.

I personally, have installed Diskeeper Lite which is slightly better than the XP defragger and still freeware. (A bit scarce on the web nowadays, You will have to search to find it.) I also have Norton SystemWorks with Speed Disk.

Both the Diskeeper Service and the Speed Disk Service have been set to manual which means that neither of them is working in the background but they can be used at my discretion. I do, however, only use Speed Disk to analyze as a cross reference to Diskeeper analyze results ...... :-X ...... and they never agree.

I always use Diskeeper Lite to defrag. I have a dedicated partition for system and programs with the data on a different partition. After having cleared the temp files, including temporary internet files, the fragmentation level is never higher than 1-2 % and defragmentation takes a minute or two.

Now, I'm off to read the comparision posted above.

Christer

Quote:

Diskkeeper defrags but leaves the files scattered all over the drive.  Perfect disk  organizes the files by frequency of use, and also defrags the free space leaving all the data neatly together on the disk

I'm not sure that "all the data neatly together on the disk" is the most efficient. When I used Speed Disk (on WinME), it left slack space to be used if a file was modified. The file would still get fragmented but the fragments would not be too far from eachother.
If a file at the front of a "neat package" gets modified, the fragments will be further apart.

Christer

By the way, some people say (and I am starting believing them) that with todays fast harddrives, it is a non-issue.

Quote:

"... By the way, some people say (and I am starting believing them) that with todays fast harddrives, it is a non-issue." Christer

I am primarily interested fashioning an optimal partition so as to gain the most reliable Ghost Image - other considerations are not important to me in the least.  Should I forego the XP defragger to rely solely on Norton Speed Disk?

[glb]El Pescador[/glb]

Quote:

I am primarily interested fashioning an optimal partition so as to gain the most reliable Ghost Image - other considerations are not important to me in the least.  Should I forego the XP defragger to rely solely on Norton Speed Disk?

The only problem I have ever had with an Image was when I still used Norton Speed Disk. The actual cause was never established beyond reasonable doubt but SS (Symantec Support) suggested using Diskeeper and to do a boot time defragmentation of the MFT (Master File Table). When SS suggest the use of a defragger other than their own, it (Norton Speed Disk) slips far down my list.

I have installed and use Diskeeper Lite which is a previous 7.? version but without all the bells and whistles of the full version. (No multi disk or multi partition defragmentation, no boot time defragmentation and no scheduling.)

You can still download Diskeeper Lite here:

http://www.webattack.com/get/dkeeperlite.shtml

Christer

In a recent email conversation with Symantec, they confirmed that a Ghost 9.0 image of a highly fragmented disk might fail when restored - IF the image was created with the SmartSector technology disabled.  (The SmartSector option is enabled by default.)