SMART Data Inconsisent

[Digerati]

I've used defraggler for years and it's became my idol for hdd maintenance. It'd be hard to convince me in a change.

There is nothing wrong with Defraggler - but then, there's nothing wrong with Windows' own defragger utility either.

I would avoid, however, defraggers that automatically defrag in the background (such as Puran), and disable any scheduled defragging (including Windows 7' own). Why? Because it is counter-productive to defrag with potentially 1000s of tiny temporary files on your hard drive. It is also counter-productive to defrag while Windows is running in "Normal" mode as there will be many opened, and therefore unmovable files on the disk.

Therefore, to get the most out of ANY defragger, you should always clean out the clutter first (run CCleaner or Windows Disk Cleanup) and you should run your defrag from Safe Mode.

Finally, all the hype about which defragger does the best job at defragging is just that, hype. Why? Because the second you start using the computer again, fragmentation will start again. So any extra gain you achieve with a 3rd party defragger like Piriform's Defraggler, Puren, or the others, is quickly leveled out.

The fact of the matter is, if you "need" regular defragging, what you really need is more free disk space.

 

[Cayden]

I've used defraggler for years and it's became my idol for hdd maintenance. It'd be hard to convince me in a change.

There is nothing wrong with Defraggler - but then, there's nothing wrong with Windows' own defragger utility either.

I would avoid, however, defraggers that automatically defrag in the background (such as Puran), and disable any scheduled defragging (including Windows 7' own). Why? Because it is counter-productive to defrag with potentially 1000s of tiny temporary files on your hard drive. It is also counter-productive to defrag while Windows is running in "Normal" mode as there will be many opened, and therefore unmovable files on the disk.

Therefore, to get the most out of ANY defragger, you should always clean out the clutter first (run CCleaner or Windows Disk Cleanup) and you should run your defrag from Safe Mode.

Finally, all the hype about which defragger does the best job at defragging is just that, hype. Why? Because the second you start using the computer again, fragmentation will start again. So any extra gain you achieve with a 3rd party defragger like Piriform's Defraggler, Puren, or the others, is quickly leveled out.

The fact of the matter is, if you "need" regular defragging, what you really need is more free disk space.

I agree. Once a moth I defrag and the defrag is rarely more than a few minutes, it's just not as necessary in Windows 7.

I've never used anything but Windows Defrag.


@wishtobeanassie: Ever thought of a NAS Box?

 

[Digerati]

Once a moth I defrag

I might once every six months - or even longer - typically after something big - like installing W7 SP1, or before moving my music library. If you have lots of free disk space, it does not matter if the files are scattered all over the place, as long as all the related file fragments are grouped together and the [hopefully] Windows managed Page File has its required breathing room.

With 1T, 64Mb buffer, SATA 6Gb/s, 7200RPM drives for less than $100, I think keeping a couple 100Gb of free disk space is plenty. Less than 30Gb on the boot disk, especially if also where the PF is running is when I think it is time to start deleting programs and files (songs, videos, pictures) you don't need, or buy more space.

Long ago, having all the files jammed into the front of the disk may have helped with performance. But not any more. Not with 13ms access times, 32 and 64mb buffers, not to mention huge amounts RAM that greatly minimizes the need to access the disk repeated. And not with ALL the software companies today pushing out updates via the Internet. And note file updates do NOT just replace the old file on the disk. A new file is written to a new location on the disk, verified, then the old location is marked free creating a hole for fragments of other files, or smaller whole files, to fall in.

This writing and verifying before deleting the old file means at some point, both versions are "temporarily" taking up ~ double the disk space - illustrating why lots of extra "free" space is needed.

Of course, the amount of needed free space also depends on how you set up your drive or drives and partitions. I have only Windows and hardware drivers on my small boot disk. The PF is on my SSD and My Documents, Temp files, and all my apps are on D drive. So I only have 25.2Gb free on my boot disk and that's not a problem. I have 700Gb free on my D drive, and of course, fragmentation is not an issue with SSDs. And with 8Gb of RAM, Windows can "prefetch" and "superfetch" almost everything the CPU needs in RAM, so the PF is not very busy.

Windows defragger will analyze your drives and tell you if you need to defrag. I last defragged my C drive in Feb a couple days (to make sure all was okay)after installing Win7 SP1. Even after all Windows Updates since then, I am just 3% fragmented. Why bother? My apps and data drive is just 2%. It will recommend defragging if needed. If you are constantly adding and removing major programs, and don't have lots of free disk space, you may need to defrag more often.

I concede that the 3rd party defraggers do produce a more efficient defragging than Windows own "basic" defragger. I am just saying a "basic" defragger is all we need. And the others, including Defraggler, really just takes up more precious disk space!

 

[Fred Garvin]

I agree, there aren't any errors showing in your SMART status. Was your original point, if I understand correctly, that you want to move all your data files to an external drive as opposed to an internal hard drive? If that's the case, I'd say no, without question. You'll always have much better performance using an internal hard drive than an external or networked drive.

 

[Anthony N]

@ Cayden, one of my earlier posts I made the comment about when I made my own gist of a networked computer storage system.

Of course it wasn't the most reliable. But I also had a cheap router at the time. Now with Gigabit LAN I can do just about anything. Besides, when would I need to page for 100MB in one file, sure lots of files maybe.

Anyways, I might give networked storage another shot. Much later tho. When my wallet is fatter.

@Digerati, I use Defraggler for a few things, one it maps out my HDD. Two yes it is more efficient, not necessarily faster. But defragging was never meant to be a snap your fingers and its done process.

@Fred, GZ suggested over eSATA, which yes it does mean I'm relying on my external drive's controller for speed. But when I did a speed test from Sata to Sata, and eSATA to SATA, the only thing that really changed was peak transfer, not sustained. So there was no benefit from using local sata (on-board) and not.

Also keep in-mind everyone I'm only using these drives if I go this route for "dead" storage. Files that are rarely seeked.

P.s.- I did run windows externally once before, and there were no issues at all running it from an eSATA connection.
And that was through a PCI, yes that ancient white slot everyone neglects. In fact it almost ran faster than a direct SATA connection. So figure that one out.

@GZ, that honestly sucks. Shame you don't get to see them more.