Hardware

Ask something
Question Locked

Diskeeper Defragmentation

0 helpful
7 replies

by mysyasir

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Hello all, I am new here. Hopefully will get my answer shortly.

I am getting a somewhat strange behavior from Diskeeper 2008. When I try manual defragmentation, it does so very quickly for my C: drive. But for all other drives, it is a shit. It seems that I'll have to wait forever to let it complete.

My sys info:
Intel Celeron processor,
128 + 256 MB RAM,
40 + 80 GB HDDs

Thanks,
Yasir

7 replies

by older mycroft

In which case Diskeeper will constantly be scanning and defragging C: 'on the fly' since that is your system disk.

Your other drive will not be part of the auto-schedule, so it is perhaps unfair of you to compare how long it is taking on that particular platter. Perhaps Diskeeper is just finding a lot more to work on.

If you insist on performing a manual defrag it is best to do it overnight - while you are sleeping: that way you won't notice how long it is taking.

Degragging has never really been a spectator sport - a bit like golf.

by mysyasir

Thanks for your reply. But auto defrag is enabled for all of my drives. So I am still confused why does it take more time on other drives than C:

:) It's really like golf. I'll try it at night.

by thumbsup2

If you store your data on the 2nd drive and the OS on the primary drive, the data will become fragmented because it is changing as you update files. The OS files don't change. They're just read into memory when needed.

Also, if your 2nd drive is the larger of the two, defragmentation will take much longer ever IF the files were equally fragmented, just because of the sheer size of the volume.

by boxfiddler

is (in my experience) also slower than snail dung on FAT32 drives.

by older mycroft

I tried Diskeeper for over a year but found it to be just THAT.

My laptop has twin FAT32 partitions and Diskeeper was painfully slow, although it ran at an acceptable pace on my (older) NTFS tower.

I moved on (and hopefully up!) to Perfect Disk which is now installed on both systems - there is practically no noticeable difference between the two while they are both running simultaneously.

The grass [b]IS[/b] sometimes greener! :D

by mysyasir

Thanks for the replies. They proved helpful. I am now planning to re-partition and re-install xp.

Currently my 120 GB disks are partitioned in 9 drives. I understand that this may not be good. Someone told me that boot drive should be smaller than others. But at some place online, I read it should be larger...

I actually want to know what should be the size of my boot partition, keeping in mind size of my current hdd.

Thanks

This discussion is closed to new replies.