Question on defragging

Noughtboy

Noughtboy

Noughtboy

Associate
Joined
18 Apr 2006
Posts
1,069
Location
Essex
Good morning,

Recently had cause to format my HDD and been reinstalling data.

In between, I have been doing defrags using Piriform Defraggler.

I used to used Defraggler as my standard program until moving into Windows 10 at which point I used the built in one.

Now, two files were fragmented. 2 mp3 totalling 5.9MB

It took 17 minutes to do the one and was anticipating 1h45 to complete as I noticed that Defraggler was moving things which had already been optimised a couple days earlier.

Is this a case of being pedantic because a few new files were added (probably totalling 25MB) so it decided to optimise about 700GB based on the new files or inefficient?

Should I just stick with the Windows 10 version which didn't seem to second guess itself every second defrag or can someone suggest another option?

Thanks

NB

Edit: Not that it should make a real difference but it was formatted NTFS in 16k blocks as this is primarily media (photos, video and music) and making the blocks bigger didn't significantly increase performance in a speed test.
 

Noughtboy

Noughtboy

Noughtboy

Associate
OP
Joined
18 Apr 2006
Posts
1,069
Location
Essex
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I don't mind if a few files are fragmented. The question was that Windows built in software is a lot quicker...so is it missing a trick or is Defraggler thorough to the point of being pedantic i.e. it would perform a defreg and then if something new was added could literally defrag by moving the entire contents around putting undue wear on the HDD by moving things for the sake of moving things.

Perhaps it is analysing usage of software and moving programs/files used more often to the outer edge etc and Windows just puts files in contiguous blocks.

That is what I am trying to get to the bottom of. Is Windows built in software good enough and Defraggler too smart for it's own good by perhaps shaving loading times by a few milliseconds at the expense of additional wear everytime I add a file?
 

bremen1874

bremen1874

bremen1874

Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Posts
12,096
The Windows defragger is good enough.

Running both Windows defragger and Defraggler will cause extra work because they'll make different decisions on how best to arrange the files and will keep undoing what the other has done.

Unless the drive is really heavily fragmented it'll make little difference to the PC's performance anyway.

You're worrying about things that you wouldn't usually even bother looking at nowadays.
 

Zefan

Zefan

Zefan

Man of Honour
Joined
15 Jan 2006
Posts
32,404
Location
Tosche Station
Yep, you're wasting your time. As said, it's simply that they have different ways of doing their work. Some old defrag software I had used to have options to put things in size, date, or filesize order, it was pretty weird. It'll just be that your other software has a different philosophy on where a file should be. Just let Windows do its thing.
 

bremen1874

bremen1874

bremen1874

Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Posts
12,096
hornetstinger said:
Also if it's taking hours to defrag two files your hd has faulty sectors.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If you have a couple of 2GB files that are fragmented it could take a long time. First, the time to move all of the other files to make space, and then the time to move the fragmented parts.

Edit: Just reread the opening post and they aren't big files. If in doubt run the manufacturer's diagnostic.
 

Noughtboy

Noughtboy

Noughtboy

Associate
OP
Joined
18 Apr 2006
Posts
1,069
Location
Essex
Hi everyone. Thanks for your input. It is a mechanical HDD (2TB). I know not to defrag SSD's and to let TRIM do it's thing.

I am not worried enough to lose sleep over this. It was more a "what is the difference in approach" to the two programs. I used to solely use Defraggler but noticed that it would often move the entire drive around when new data was added. I tend to only defrag every month or so. So, when I got Windows 10 installed a couple years back, I partitioned using Windows instead of the Auslogics or Piriform equivalent. Since then I used the Windows inbuilt defraggler. I noticed that it was quicker and I suppose begged the existential question I posed on efficiency. Is it just doing the bare minimum and therefore isn't really that good or is Defraggler taking itself way too seriously and taking things to the nth degree.

I am not sure that the Defraggler approach is worth the time and difference in performance if it is putting the HDD under additional stress by moving more than it should or that Windows is doing enough so was asking the hive.

On a separate but related issue, the 2TB HDD is now reading a constant 46C under HWinfo64. This is current/min/max/average when it used to be around the 28C-32C mark. I have added a 1TB drive below it which is currently reading 29C with min/max 18/30. So, I am wondering if a SMART sensor could be be shorted/misreading as it seems very high (compared to last week as an example with warmer weather). Surely the HDD below cannot be upping the air above it by 17C especially considering that there are a couple of fans blowing directly onto them.

NB
 

bremen1874

bremen1874

bremen1874

Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Posts
12,096
Noughtboy said:
On a separate but related issue, the 2TB HDD is now reading a constant 46C under HWinfo64. This is current/min/max/average when it used to be around the 28C-32C mark. I have added a 1TB drive below it which is currently reading 29C with min/max 18/30. So, I am wondering if a SMART sensor could be be shorted/misreading as it seems very high (compared to last week as an example with warmer weather). Surely the HDD below cannot be upping the air above it by 17C especially considering that there are a couple of fans blowing directly onto them.
Click to expand...
Without seeing it we have no way of knowing how closely the drives are stacked or what the airflow is like.

Swap the drive positions and see if the 1TB gets hotter and the 2TB cooler.

Have you ever noticed a real-world difference before/after defragging?

With defragging, it's very much a case of diminishing gains. The quick automated defrag that Windows does automatically seems to be perfectly adequate.
 

Semple

Semple

Semple

Soldato
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Posts
12,359
Noughtboy said:
Hi everyone. Thanks for your input. It is a mechanical HDD (2TB). I know not to defrag SSD's and to let TRIM do it's thing.

I am not worried enough to lose sleep over this. It was more a "what is the difference in approach" to the two programs. I used to solely use Defraggler but noticed that it would often move the entire drive around when new data was added. I tend to only defrag every month or so. So, when I got Windows 10 installed a couple years back, I partitioned using Windows instead of the Auslogics or Piriform equivalent. Since then I used the Windows inbuilt defraggler. I noticed that it was quicker and I suppose begged the existential question I posed on efficiency. Is it just doing the bare minimum and therefore isn't really that good or is Defraggler taking itself way too seriously and taking things to the nth degree.

I am not sure that the Defraggler approach is worth the time and difference in performance if it is putting the HDD under additional stress by moving more than it should or that Windows is doing enough so was asking the hive.

On a separate but related issue, the 2TB HDD is now reading a constant 46C under HWinfo64. This is current/min/max/average when it used to be around the 28C-32C mark. I have added a 1TB drive below it which is currently reading 29C with min/max 18/30. So, I am wondering if a SMART sensor could be be shorted/misreading as it seems very high (compared to last week as an example with warmer weather). Surely the HDD below cannot be upping the air above it by 17C especially considering that there are a couple of fans blowing directly onto them.

NB
Click to expand...

It sounds as though defraggler is taking more of a ruthless approach to defragging.

There's going to be a trade off between the defrag performance and how much wear on the disks the defragging causes.

I would just leave windows to choose when it needs to do a defrag.
 

Noughtboy

Noughtboy

Noughtboy

Associate
OP
Joined
18 Apr 2006
Posts
1,069
Location
Essex
bremen1874 said:
Without seeing it we have no way of knowing how closely the drives are stacked or what the airflow is like.

Swap the drive positions and see if the 1TB gets hotter and the 2TB cooler.
Click to expand...

Problem solved. When the problem didn't resolve with a data reset I shut down HWInfo and upon restarting it, everything is fine. Drive temp is back to normal (25C-28C). Wierd one as the other drives were updating as was all the other info.

[/QUOTE] Have you ever noticed a real-world difference before/after defragging?

With defragging, it's very much a case of diminishing gains. The quick automated defrag that Windows does automatically seems to be perfectly adequate.[/QUOTE]

On files that are heavily fragmented, yes especially as it is a media drive i.e. 5400 rpm
 

Noughtboy

Noughtboy

Noughtboy

Associate
OP
Joined
18 Apr 2006
Posts
1,069
Location
Essex
Semple said:
It sounds as though defraggler is taking more of a ruthless approach to defragging.

There's going to be a trade off between the defrag performance and how much wear on the disks the defragging causes.

I would just leave windows to choose when it needs to do a defrag.
Click to expand...

That is what I decided to do in the end. There is "excellent" and "good enough". Seeing as I don't want to unduly wear the drive, will settle for good enough.

Thank you everyone for your input
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom