Disk fragmentation

[LSPaul]

Just got new hardware with a Gigabyte mother board which has a build in Promise raid controller. I am running two WD 80M disks in a mode 0 (stripe) configuration, under XP Pro. After doing some initial application setups (used Aloha Bob to transfer some programs, AMAZING !!!), I noted that Norton was telling me that my disk was about 35% fragmented (yes, I know I should be using Disk Keeper), so I defragged. But within 24 hours Norton indicated that I was about 30% fragmented, though there was little disk activity in that time. Anyone know if this fragmentation is real, or if it is an anomoly inherent in the raid controller or perhaps Norton?

[ChrisP]

Speed Disk for Windows XP does not use the native Speed Disk driver. Instead it uses the Microsoft MoveFile API. This results in less functionality and less thoroughness for Speed Disk, though moves are now handled in a "Microsoft-approved" manner. As a result of the migration away from the Norton Speed Disk driver, higher amounts of fragmentation may remain on the drive after Speed Disk completes. Speed Disk for Windows XP does not touch system files, system folders, or Master File Table (MFT). In addition, some of the fragmented files are unmovable, such as the _Restore files and the Pagefile. Therefore, higher fragmentation rates may be reported, especially for the System Volume Information folder. However, fragmentation will still be much lower than it was before running Speed Disk, and file placement will be optimized.Once you have established a baseline fragmentation level that the operating system is not going to allow you to get beyond, you can adjust the alarm level in the System Doctor sensor so that it is not red all the time.

The above is excerpted from this Norton FAQ and should give a round-about explanation.I think that what is happening here is that you are simply seeing the "normal minimum level" of fragmentation remaining under WinXP with either the MS or Norton defrag products.

[LSPaul]

Thanks for the info Chris. I apoligize for not checking the Symantec site first, as I "assumed" that it must be a problem with the raid controller, and I have not had much luck with the Symantec site in the past with other issues. Diskeeper will be installed today!In the past I have had occasional issues where after defragging, some of my programs don't work exactly the same as before. This has led me to the habit of doing a full system backup prior to the defrag. Am I the only one who is paranoid? Lowell

[Cluttermagnet]

Just got new hardware with a Gigabyte mother board which has a build in Promise raid controller.  I am running two WD 80M disks in a mode 0 (stripe) configuration, under XP Pro.  After doing some initial application setups (used Aloha Bob to transfer some programs, AMAZING !!!), I noted that Norton was telling me that my disk was about 35% fragmented (yes, I know I should be using Disk Keeper), so I defragged.  But within 24 hours Norton indicated that I was about 30% fragmented, though there was little disk activity in that time.  Anyone know if this fragmentation is real, or if it is an anomoly inherent in the raid controller or perhaps Norton?

Your comments about Diskeeper caught my interest, also ChrisP's comments about limited effectiveness of Speed Disk in XP. I didn't know about that because my experience with XP is so limited at this point. I have only logged about 10 hours with it so far on a friend's machine. I have read that it can be a hard transition from Win98 to XP and I'm ready to believe that! I have also read elsewhere that XP at least contains an excellent Help file that does a good job of explaining and contrasting the differences between how XP and 98 do things. I did a google search and read about Diskeeper on ZDnet Downloads. Is this the same utility as "Disk Keeper" you mentioned? From an admittedly small sample group of 49, Diskeeper had an amazingly high negative rating from some 35 percent of those who tried it (17 people). There was a common thread about disaster and often of having to reformat C: etc., also claims that their support people for the paid version were unfriendly or ineffective. Yikes! Sounds like Diskeeper is very agressive in making changes to an OS and can be not well-behaved even for those who decide to purchase before/after the 30 day trial is up. Based even on such a limited review, I would never install that software on my system. Sounds like you had better have a good disk imaging utility like Drive Image on board if you intend to try Diskeeper 7.0. It sounds pretty nasty. Sounds like you may end up needing a new image if you don't want to reformat C:http://downloads-zdnet.com.com/3000-2094-7...html?tag=launch(click on "Read User Opinions")

[Guest LilBambi]

I use Disk Keeper Lite (free) and it doesn't have the ability to auto defrag in the background and I have been very happy with it on my Win98se.I really wonder if it is the auto defragging constantly in the background that is often problematic with the full version.

[FuzzButt]

I can't imagine why some people have unfavorable opinions of Executive Software's Diskeeper.I have used it since version 5 and it is up to 7 now. I think it works great. It is the defrag utility that is part of XP in a "lite" mannor. But as with all disk utilities you should have backups before you use them.

[srdowns]

I have been using Diskeeper for a number of years now. From my first NT server to our XP workstations, I have used Diskeeper instead of Norton or other defrag programs because it always worked. Their support people leave much to be desired, however.But, when using the workstation version on XP systems with a Raid 0 setup, there are problems. If I do a regular disk defrag, no problem, but when I do a "boot time defrag" on a Raid O setup, I get massive data corruption. After many emails to their tech support, I gave up. Their attitude was that it must be something that I was doing and offered no problem solving ideas as to what might be the problem. After a while, they stopped responding to my emails. By the way, this problem occurs on all of our XP workstations with a IDE Raid 0 setup.I still think that Diskeeper is a good product for many users, just not for all users.

[Gus K]

It is the defrag utility that is part of XP in a "lite" mannor.

That maybe so but XP's defrag is nothing like Diskeeper's. With Diskeeper it wants you to defrag constantly. After a Diskeeper defrag, as you use your computer (no installs or uninstalls) XP moves files around to what it considers a more favorable location on the disc, based on how you use your rig. Diskeeper decides this is fragmentation and wants you to defrag again. Seems counter productive to me.I have no problems with XP's native defrag, it always completely defrags my disk and lays down the files in a way that it prefers. I seldom defrag, and have seen no difference in performance from constant defragging or the use of any of the other so called 'better' utilities out there.It is also interesting to note that Steve Gibson and many others feel defragging is no big deal.