Defragging slowed my system down...otay

[Brian Frank 0]

Specs in sig (as usual). The Imperial Star Destroyer takes forever to boot up in XP. I know this uses 5400RPM drives, but gimme a break. I defragged 2 partitions, C:\ being one of them. I'd also noticed a slow down before going to XP under 2k. Is this a sign my drive(s) are going bad?

 

I've defragged using the XP defragger, but I don't see how this would hose the system. I did reformat my NTFS drives as NTFS 5.1, but I don't think this is the problem.

I'm not sure what's up, but I know something is screwy.

[clutch 1]

Just as a guess, I would imagine that your performance optimizer may have not worked or simply arranged the data on your drive to load faster when being launched, and not on boot up. Go here:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/platform/performance/fastboot/default.asp

 

click on downloads, and then get "Bootvis". Extract it, launch it, and then tell it to optimize your system. It will reboot your machine, and then you DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING once you have logged on. It will wait and watch all the apps and services to see what is launched at boot up, and will then move those files so they will launch faster.

[Speed4Ever 0]

Quote:

* If you could tell the native one to ignore files? IF it does not work in harmonious operation already with XP BootOpt/Optimallayout features? I could port this 160 lines of code to that too, with ease!

The native defragger already does this.

Brian,

Is it possible that XP is choking on a service start or something? Check your event logs for anything. If the disk is going bad, that should also tell you there.

[Speed4Ever 0]

Quote:

Odd too, using Diskeeper based code in that native defragger also... diskeeper does not practice bands of use patterns when it defrags!

Quote:

MS must have altered it for this, or told it to ignore those layout.ini files for it to account with it working in harmony with XP BootOptimize/Optimallayout features.

Diskeeper (native and executive) IIRC, has always just "defragged the files where they may lay". Is this what you meant? DK doesnt use an optimization routine like PD and SD do. THis is why it sometimes defrags much faster than PD and SD, as it doesnt have to move things around as much. Theres pros and cons with this, but I'll get into that later...gotta eat

Later...

[Speed4Ever 0]

Quote:

" I want you to think about this: If you ran Diskeeper or PerfectDisk (or even the native defrag with its file placements technology if it uses it while it defrags in XP, which it very well may be that altered now, who knows? Not just ignoring XP bootopt/layoutopt stuff like we plan to do there, because after I just did this run I just did to test for us? The native defragger, built originally of diskeeper code, showed SAME 10 FILES FRAGGED AS SPEEDISK DID... more on diskeeper next, but BEAR THAT IN MIND!!!) first & set the disk to be placement optimized already?

See my comparison I sent you via email.

Quote:

Diskeeper might run faster due to less work, but if it sees a pattern of defrag done by Speedisk my guess is it FLIPS IT OUT, & says disk is a mess! On the reverse flipside now, if you ran Diskeeper alot there, or just before Speedisk??

It might take Speedisk longer in a scenario like that to work.

I am guessing you ran both & saw this very thing... maybe diskeeper patterned defrag more at your place in fact!

AGAIN: If you used Diskeeper more there at home or before Speedisk?

Speedisk would be like looking at it as a 'first run' redoing the pattern to ITS algorithm based on IBM defragmentation technologies based on accesses & splitting files into parts most accessed even!

Speedisk in that case, took longer because of that quite possibly!

I just ran speed disk for the first time on this computer with a new installation. Took almost 1 1/2 hours. I havent run DK on this install yet, except to take the analysis I sent you. DK service was disabled until then, so it hasnt had the opportunity to run yet.

I can say this, DK has NEVER taken 1 1/2 hours to defrag anything. At the most, 15-20 minutes on a severely fragged HD, 5 minutes on a lite-medium fragged HD.

Now, I havent run SD for too long on XP, so I need more time to see if it does speed up defrag runs after several times run. So far, on the last install, SD always spent time moving stuff out of the way to put in most frequent file accessed (which keeps changing all the time). This is why it always took so long on each run. I'm going to start another run right now, just to see how long it takes. It said after the last run that only the MFT was fragmented by 3 files (sorry, I forgot that part in the last email--my bad), so things shouldnt have changed that much since then.

I know, we've been going around and around on this one, but its just too damned interesting

Heres some more food for thought...

To me, theres 2 modes of defrag theory of operation...

1) Defrag it quick, dont worry about optimizations...

2) Defrag it optimally, put everything in its special place, takes longer.

Now, my thought on this (and I could be wrong), is that, with very few exceptions, it doesnt matter where the hell the files are, as long as they are defragmented. Or taken another way, does the fact that SD and PD take longer actually SAVE you time? I honestly dont notice a speed difference between DK and SD as far as disk accesses go. But I do notice that SD/PD take longer than DK. So, which way is more optimal with the speeds of todays HDs (I'm talking 7200 RPM, ATA 66 or higher, on a meduim to high end processor)?

Do you see what I'm talking about?

P.S.--AlecStaar, did I ever tell you that you sound like Steve Gibson?

Just kidding...<ducks and covers>

[Speed4Ever 0]

Point 1 Response:

 

I never said that I ran DK on this install. You know that I recently reinstalled XP. I reinstalled my apps, and ran SD for the first time tonight. It took 1 1/2 hours. Then I used DK for analysis, but I never defragmented with it.

 

As with the rest of your explanation, I agree, good point.

 

Point 2 Response:

 

When you talk about the native defragmenter, are you meaning DK lite thats installed on XP, or XPs boot and app optimization algorithms. IIRC, the two are separate functions not really related to eachother, although XPs layout may use some DK technology. I need clarification on which one you mean.

 

I'll assume for the moment that you mean DK lite. DK and DK lite both work on the same principal, except that DK lite cant defragment the MFT or consolidate directories (MFT defragmentation is mute at this point, 'cause XP takes care of that).

 

I need your clarification before I can respond to the rest of this portion.

 

Point 3 Response:

 

But your assuming that XPs opt. algorithms are based on IBMS technology. It may be in some ways, but we dont know enough to assume that at this point, unless you can point me to a link that says this. But thats also a mute point.

 

Both theories of operation become faster as time goes by, and you defragment more. I guess what I want to know is, based on todays HD speeds and technologies, is either one really noticeable in anything except benchmarks? Both SD and DK let me operate at the same speeds. The only factor here is, XP optimizes Boot and App files, so both are run faster. Neither SD nor PD nor DK even need this functionality, as XP takes care of it. All XP needs is the bulk of the partition defragmented.

 

So we come to my two theories of operation--optimized, and non-optimized. One defragments faster than the other. Both run at basically the same speeds in everyday OS use. All you really need is defragmented files and defragmented clear space. Both SD, PD, and DK do this. IMO, with the except of the files that XP's layout.ini handles, the defragmenter SHOULD NOT HAVE to optimize the rest of the layout, as XP takes care of this.

 

So then, it comes down to speed of defragmentation. I run my defragmenter roughly every 2 days when I'm not working. In my experience, a light to medium-fragmented partition takes 5-10 minutes to defrag with DK, because its not working as hard. Meanwhile, SD and PD have to rearrange more files because their layout changes all the time, depending on usage. To me, even if they make the OS a little faster, the time they are taking to do this negates the time savings. And thats one of the primary purposes of a defragmenter--to allow you to do things faster and save time. SD and PD in my experience have never taken less then 15-20 minutes on a lightly-fragmented partition, because of all the rearranging. Now, if SD were run on a weekly basis, the time savings could probably be more noticable. But some people like to run it every night to have their file system as defragmented as possible much of the time. This is where DK excels IMO.

 

 

Point 4 Response:

 

Again, I ran SD for the first time on this install, not DK. But, your reasoning is sound in the capacity you site. But that wasnt the case here. BTW, my second defrag with SD took about one hour. This was immediately after the first defrag run. So this helps prove that the rearranging Theory of Operation has its drawbacks. Again, if run on a weekly basis, SD would realize more time-savings. But on a daily defrag run, DK would be the way to go.

 

 

Quote:

(Drink that all in, digest it... think about it!)

 

Already had a few, thanks

[Brian Frank 0]

Discaching Disabled a couple of times in the system log. That explains a lot. Now where do I enable them...

 

Nice tool, clutch, thanx. It's a keeper.

[Speed4Ever 0]

Well, to quote a real old song from the 70's...

 

"You may be right....I may be crazy..."

 

(Kudos to whoever names the artist )

 

No, I dont have diskeeper service running. I enabled it long enough to run an analysis, then disabled it again. With all the trouble we're going through trying to get SD and XP to work good together, I'm not about to throw DK into the mix 8) Anyways, no, I had DK disabled, and it never had a chance to run.

 

On XP and DK interfering with eachother, thats highly doubtful. The XP FS optimization routine only runs during idle times, and that only takes about a minute or two (you basically ran it when you used the rundll32.exe advapi32.dll, ProcessIdleTasks command. The chances of DK interfering with it (assuming there is no safeguards built in to check that) is slim at best. Personally, I worry more about the fact that SD keeps kicking my MFT up to the top of the map, where supposedly the bootfiles are placed. XP will have it down somewhere else in the disk, and SD throws it back up there.

 

Are you sure we've disabled SD from moving the MFT? Because something funky is going on there. I never saw this happen when DK was running. I typically saw XP move the MFT into the freespace towards the bottom of the map as disk space filled up. Is this happening to you?

 

I tell you what. We've both put up some good arguments about the pros and cons of both SD and DK. So heres what I say...

 

Lets find a way to stop SD from f***ing with the MFT, and I'll love the product. Whether I prefer SD or DK, DK is boring cause it aint broken, so lets fix SD and go on to the next broken POS (Piece Of Software )

 

Does that sound ok?

 

Cause I got a feeling we're acting like SD and XP: We're both right, but from differing points of view.

 

Whatcha say?

[Speed4Ever 0]

Brian,

 

Sorry, you got lost in the middle of the brain-fart between AlecStaar and me

 

If you mean write-back caching, go to control panel>system>hardware tab> device manager>disk drives, double click your HD, go to policies, enable "optimize for performance". That *SHOULD* do the trick, unless your message means something else.

 

Post back if it doesnt get fixed.

 

Sorry for hijacking your thread like that 8)

[Brian Frank 0]

Hmmm. I checked that and it's grayed out, but the "Optimized settings on both drives are checked. Hmmmmmmmm.

[Speed4Ever 0]

Quote:

Do me a favor... send me a copy of your layout.ini file here, zip it and fly it to me via email! I want to take a look at the contents of yours, it may lead me to a theory I have on my yours is taking some time to run that Speedisk defragmentation!

Sorry, but I dont even give that out to my wife over the web <g>. Handing that out over the internet poses a significant security risk, especially on broadband. Think about it...thats practically the contents of your computer inventoried, not everything, but a damned good chunk of it. And if I edited it. that would probably defeat the purpose of your theory, whatever it might be.

Its not that I dont trust you, its just that I dont trust you THAT much . Hope no offense is taken, but I just cant do that.

Can you tell me what your looking for, maybe I can help.

BTW, this drive is hardly 90% clear. More like 30% (40 gigger)

[Brian Frank 0]

That's fine. I finally found out the source I've my troubles: my drives were going down the crapper, and I'm RMAing them right now. I did grab a 40GB 5400RPM Maxtor at Best Buy for a quick fix my rig, cuz I won't see the RMA util Christmas if not later. Fortunately, a local shop will take care of the RMA process for me and I just have to pay shipping both ways (if Maxtor charges them for return shipping)