|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I've been using version 5 for NT for almost a month now. It is working
flawlessly and my previous performance issues have gone away. As far as
I'm concerned, it is well worth the $40. It does take many passes to fully
defrag a drive, but with the set and forget feature, I don't care. It does
its passes while I'm sleeping. When I want to use the machine next day,
everything is clean and working fine. -uf
At 06:19 PM 9/18/99 -0600, Gary Fritz wrote:
> > For any Win NT user, Diskeeper Lite sounds well needed and a true
> > bargain.
>
>I also downloaded DK Lite a few days ago, and I'm not quite as
>impressed.
>
>I ran it on my C drive (NTFS) which was fairly heavily fragmented.
>It's 70% full (3GB out of 4.3), so there is 1.3GB free on it, and
>there was a single contiguous 250MB free space on it due to moving my
>VM swap space to the D drive just before running DK Lite.
>
>Any decent defragger I've ever seen would have been able to
>completely defrag this disk and create large free spaces. DKlite had
>plenty of free space to work with, including the large contiguous
>piece. But DK Lite couldn't fully defrag it, even after 7
>consecutive defrags!! Furthermore, the first defrag, instead of
>consolidating fragmented files in the large free space, splattered
>the free space all over the disk and left many fragmented files
>behind.
>
>More troublesome, the information from the program was inconsistent.
>DK Lite has an "Analyze" mode and a "Defrag" mode. Both report the
>number of fragmented files and the number of "excess fragments."
>Here are the results of running many A's and D's:
>
> FragFiles ExcessFrags
>A: 3600 52000 (TS4 database was in 3700 pieces.... :-)
>D: 100 22178
>A: (forgot to record this one)
>D: 100+ 8000
>A: 24 13000
>D: 6 1312
>A: 18 12103
>D: 4 4102
>A: 14 8003
>A: 33 8346 (might have been a defrag between these?)
>D: 2 37
>A: 11 7934
>D: "Can't defrag any further"
>A: 14 7705
>D: 4 109
>A: 10 7596
>
>I did some operations between some of these Defrag/Analyze cycles,
>but not enough to cause that kind of variation. I always analyzed
>immediately after the defrag finished, and the D & A answers were
>always wildly different.
>
>Meanwhile, the graphical display of the disk showed most of the disk
>being fragmented, even after 7 defrag passes!
>
>And on my D drive, the graphic Analysis display showed more used
>(contiguous) files than empty filespace, even though there's only
>1.9GB used and 6.8GB free on that drive! Then I ran a defrag on D
>and most of the previously "used" space turned magically into "free"
>space!?
>
>For free, it's hard to complain too much. I suspect my disk is in
>much better shape than it was before. The full version offers
>important improvements, like the ability to run a defrag at bootup so
>you can move/consolidate directories. And the DiskKeeper defraggers
>have the VERY nice feature that they can supposedly defrag a file
>even if it's open by another application. (Hence Ullrich's ability
>to run it every night without shutting down TS.)
>
>But I'm leery of buying the full-featured version if the freebie demo
>acts this bizarre.
>
>Gary
|