Windows

General discussion

Locked

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

By ebott ·
Windows 2000 includes a light version of Executive Software's Diskeeper defragmentation software. Unfortunately, it has a few serious limitations, most notably its inability to schedule defrag sessions or optimize data in the Master File Table. Is disk fragmentation really an issue for Windows 2000 users? Should I upgrade to the full version of Diskeeper on NT and W2K workstations and servers? Is Norton's Speed Disk 5.0 any better? I'm especially interested in hearing of any independent benchmarks you've run to measure performance gains and of any hassles you might have encountered when defragging Windows 2000 servers.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by techytype In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

According to Symantec version 5.0 of Speedisk is NOT suitable for Windows 2000. That handles that part of your question. I'm waiting for them (Symantec) to release their "Norton Utilities" for Windows 2000. In the meantime....

I am using the full versions of Diskeeper, both the Workstation and Server version. I am able to recommend this program without reservation. It is, in my not so humble opinion, currently best of breed for Windows 2000 and Windows NT. Although the product is also recommended by Executive Software for Windows 9x I find that the Norton Utilities Speedisk (latest version of course) is still a better choice for Win 9x.

The "free" version of Diskeeper that is included in Windows 2000 is a teaser. Deliberately designed (translation: crippled) to make you want to get the real product. Do it. The advantages of keeping your hard disk files optimized have been documented so thoroughly and completely that I find it difficult to believe anyone would still be thinking they wouldn't need it.

I don't bother wasting my time with a stop watch testing for speed improvements. In the real world the differences are dramatic enough that a stop watch is not necessary. I would think that says volumes about the need for using such a product to improve and maintain the system and in the case of servers, your network.

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by ebott In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by oded In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

Full Diskeeper works better, but only if set to work on Boot Up. Even then, you need to run it several times.
My experience is much better with the latest Norton Utilities or, to save a little money, Norton Speed Disk. It is nearly as good as when Peter Norton used to own and develop this soft ware. It is easier to configure and has additional functions. Dr. O. Szpiro, oded@travelcafe.org

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by oded In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

I have seen, through copernic shopper that there is or soon will be in U.S.A. Norton 2001 which should cover windows 2000. It is not yet available in U.K. I have found a U.K. source for Norton Utilities at cost of ?30 - ?35. It can also be boughtand down loaded fom the WEB.

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by oded In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

I have seen, through copernic shopper that there is or soon will be in U.S.A. Norton 2001 which should cover windows 2000. It is not yet available in U.K. I have found a U.K. source for Norton Utilities at cost of ?30 - ?35. It can also be boughtand down loaded fom the WEB.

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by ebott In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by oded In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

Full Diskeeper works better, but only if set to work on Boot Up. Even then, you need to run it several times.
My experience is much better with the latest Norton Utilities or, to save a little money, Norton Speed Disk. It is nearly as good as when Peter Norton used to own and develop this soft ware. It is easier to configure and has additional functions. Dr. O. Szpiro, oded@travelcafe.org

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by ebott In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

Other limitations of the Win2k built-in defragger:

- On FAT partitions, it cannot defrag directories.
- Can't defragment the pagefile.
- No network capabilities.

In regards to SpeedDisk 5.1 for Win2k (not yet commercially available I believe):

After looking at the Beta version for Win2k, it appears to be very similiar to the 5.0 version that runs under NT 4.0. SD is VERY service pack dependent - anything that MS does that changes the offset in the Windows Memory Manager, renders SD un-runable - that is because SD doesn't use the Microsoft defrag api's to defrag. SD is a "one pass" defragger - does a pretty good job in one pass. Downside is that you DO NOT have the option of NOT defragmenting the MFT or pagefile. Although SD is capable of defragmenting the Master File Table, it is unable to defragment the rest of the NTFS Metadata ($MFTMirr, $LogFile, $Bitmap, etc). Although SD can be scheduled, to do anything through the network requires purchase of additional software. Because SD has a component that runs as a filter driver, on heavy I/O systems, this can cause a performance drag.

In regards to Diskeeper full function version:

Although DK can defragment the Master File Table, it is unable to defragment therest of the NTFS Metadata. DK's boot time defrag also can take a LONG time - and the only way to interrupt is to hit the CPU reset button or power off your system. Why does it take so long? Because during the boot time defrag, besides defragmenting the MFT, DK also attempts to reduce all of the freespace holes that it leaves behind during it's online passes. DK is known for being a multi-pass defragger - you may have to run many times in order to get a complete defrag pass. Network capabilities are built into only the Server version of DK.

For those that are interested, there is another option for defragmenting on Win2k - PerfectDisk 2000 - www.raxco.com. If you

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by ebott In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Related Discussions

Related Forums