Best Defrag. Software

Unusual amounts of disk activity when nothing intensive appears to be running can sometimes be reduced or even stopped by increasing the AGP aperture size in BIOS Chipse Features Setup. The default size is often 64MB. This is to small for most cards, even the old 16MB voodoo 3 3000 on my secondary PC stopped thrashing when I increased it a couple of weeks ago. I've read at least 128MB is recommended and even more may help. Some experimenting is advisable. The available choices will vary according to your BIOS.
Regularly defragging will help a little as well.

I use Diskeeper 7.xxx with the latest updates. But the built in Diskeeper version used by MS works fairly well, just doesn't look as pretty. The free Diskeeper Lite 7.x available from their site is identical to the purchased version without a couple of features like Bootime (MFT) defragmentation, Set and forget (I prefer to manually run Diskeeper anyway) and an annoying buy me Nag screen.

 

Diskeeper v's XP

Hi

Found a very interesting comparison chart regarding XP's trimmed version with the actual version.

Have a look here to see :

http://www.diskeeper.com/diskeeper/dkvsxpdefrag.asp

Very interesting - before anyone asks the fact sheet was produced by someone totally unconnected with Diskeeper Software !

Hope this is useful. Yes the Buy me screen is annoying !

 

Book Advice !

Hi

Think Pagefile is a big part of my worries ....... I have Windows XP - Annoyances. I was reading it last night & the aurthor states that XP uses a trimmed version of Speedisk.

He states that the actual version ( not built in ) ia able to move your pagefile to the physical beginning of your partition, which should theorertically improve performance. The built in version is not capable of defragmenting the file. I assume from this that the actual version should be ?????

If you analyze the drive - look at the report. The MFT should be at the end of the report. ( Volume info. report ) Check the percent in use. The higher the number, the less space the MFT has to grow. Thus a low percentage will let the MFT grow ( apparently it will !!! ) There are a few tweaks but they seem to need percise figures or you could end up with more fragments if it grows too large & then wastes space. It would not do anything to the current value only to future growth.

You can guess the best way to rebuild this - format the drive !

I moved my pagefile to a partition. Defragmented the C drive & then moved it back & set the level constant. I am going to work with this for a few days to see. It really is a minefield of what the best thing to do is !

I am thinking of adding more RAM & thus less access to the PF !!! Just need to find someone who can add it for me

 

I just gotta ask now.

If the Defrag being used does indeed put the more freguently ( or last ) used files ( programs ) nearer the front of the drive ?

If you used program A the most for a few days. Isn't defrag going to put it near the front ?

Now you don't use program A at all but use program B more.

Now, at the next defrag is it or is it not going to switch things around AGAIN ? In my thinking this is not only waste of time but unnecessarily overworks the HD. And appears to be very time consumming. I watched this happen in 98SE with TaskMonitor loading. Every time I ran defrag things at the top and bottom would get switched around. SpeedDisk would also do the same.

I could see a no noticeable increase in operation speed. But I could see a deffinite INCREASE in defrag time. And the larger the drive the longer it took to defrag. So overall where was my gain ?

In 98SE I dumped the Taskmonitor. Emptied the Applog folder. I see no decrease in overall operation speed. But I do see a deffinite DECREASE in defrag time.

When dealing with Windows and speed I do not think it is good to pick out just one part. HD size and loading has an effect. The program it self may have large size files which has and effect. The format of the drive may have an effect. The real trick is getting things set that they work together.

Overall I have seen the best operation come from a larger amount of RAM. Keeping the swap file to a fixed minimum and at the front of another partition. Keeping the startup items to a minimum. And keeping the HD size ( with 9x anyway ) under 8gig. And most of all keeping the C: drive to an absulute minimum for the OS. The C: drive is the one that gets torn up the most by fragmentation.

At least that this is the way I see things.

BillyBob

 

RAM !

Hi

Exactly - I am just about to get more RAM for my laptop ..... all the postings regarding pagefiles seem to point to more RAM thus I have just made the call to have someone install it for me.

Regarding the PF not on C drive - is it OK to move it to a partition on the same drive ( not a separte HD ) ie - even a partition on it's own ? I have it set to constant but it is still with the OS.
I was worried if I made a partition for it that it would cause probelms as C would not have any - hope this makes sense ...... I thought C needed something to access the PF in case of crash etc

I was ready to take it from C but then had conflicting advice. It's not speed I am worried about more the framentation of it.

Grateful for your advice on this. At least I have got the extra RAM bit right ....... just should I move PF or not

 

I also was more concerened about fragmentation than speed.

This can be like many other things. Personal preference and system related. I should have said another partition rather than drive which would make thing clearer.

I can not really says much about XP as that is a totally different animal than 98. And I have not had enough time to attempt taming it.

BillyBob

 

Same goes for me !

Hi

I am trying to tame XP too. I must admit I have learnt a lot in the short time I have been using it. I was more afraid when using 98se as I was not confident at all.

I really cannot get used to the accounts bit - Administrator etc ! To me I am ME ......


The forums & magazines provide a lot of resource for me. I will have to check & see if my pagefile is intact. I am on my way to more RAM for sure.

What fun - who knows what will be there when LongHorn is launched ........

 

The RAM reference is my way of saying that there are far better things to spend money on than a piece of defrag software.
The built in XP one works, leave it alone, and someone above mentioned a static pagefile size, which to me, is obvious, and has been researched/discussed to death elsewhere.

Ge more RAM, use the pagefile much less, and WHO CARES if it's on the fastest portion of the drive? It's not going to be used anyhow, except in extreme multitasking environments (no, I don't mean email and browsing).

Longhorn is XP.
Users who are comfortable with XP will notice almost no difference.
The single biggest difference between XP and LH, is that LH will be a true 64 bit OS (backwards compatible), and XP is 32 bit.
In order to take advantage of LH (or whatever it's going to be called), you will need a 64 bit CPU and motherboard...not something that's readily availble for the home market yet.
It's out there, if you have the money, but so far, is real overkill for the average SOHO user.
If you're interested, go grab one of these: http://www.tyan.com/products/html/thunderi7505.html
and two of these: http://www.intel.com/products/server/processors/server/xeon/index.htm?iid=ipp_srvr_proc+high1_xeon&

 

The more RAM you have, the more it will get used, and probably the bigger XP will make your swap file.
Who cares how big it is?
If you have the RAM, let it get used, and if the swap needs to be used, it's there for that purpose.
I put in 256 meg of RAM, set the swap to 1.5x that, min and max (384meg), then add another 256 meg, and forget it.
If you already have 512 RAM, then XP will want the swap somewhere around 768meg. That works, but is a little overkill.

Yes.

 

No, Christer, 1+1 does not =2.

Like most rules, the 1.5x rule seems to have a limited sphere of application. Right now, I have 768 megs of RAM and plan to upgrade to 3 gigs. Why? No idea, except to experiment with the possibilities of that much RAM.

Certainly, like most things in the world, RAM has decreasing marginal benefit.

But, I have no plans to make my pagefile 4.5 gigs as a result. I agree with your assumption that the more memory (above a certain, unknown limit, that depends on what you do) should result in less use of the pagefile. Many people with 512 megs or more of RAM say that they do just fine in XP with no pagefile at all. Others, that they did fine until that one app that required a pagefile came along and they got an "Out of memory" error.

XP specifies a minimum of 2 megs, but some say they don't even have that.

So, if you set your pagefile to 1x and have 512 megs of RAM, I doubt you will experience any problems. If you edit a 750 meg movie and get an "Out of memory" error, shut down a couple things and make the pagefile a little bigger. Your usage will dictate what you need.

Part of the problem about this question is that there is no definitive answer. I keep a pagefile because I want to avoid the perhaps unlikely hassle of getting an error in the middle of things. There are those who use a RAMdisk for the pagefile---it makes little sense to me since supposedly the pagefile is only used when RAM is needed.

Your reasonable choice sounds good to me---an error means increase it. Not the end of the world
.

 

The "logic" of the recommended size, since MS has no idea what people will do with their machines, is to make the pagefile so exaggeratedly large that no one will ever get an error message due to its being too small. What else could they have done but to make a complex questionnaire for every user which would be ignored by most anyway?

This little tool may help you in your configuration. It displays the pagefile usage and logs it (if desired). It is interesting to see that my max pagefile usage in this session has been 11 megs. in one and 14 in the other, a total of 25! Of course, XP Pro can be configured to log this through the MMC console, but this is simpler.

Run it for a while and you'll get an idea of what kind of pagefile you need. Push your machine to the max, open multiple programs, edit some large .bmp's, and see what the usage actually is. If you set it as mentioned in the directions so that it runs as a shutdown script, then you will have a log of the usage in several different sessions.

http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/XP_PageFileMon.zip

PS. 512 seemed to be the "sweet spot" for me. There was a noticable improvement in the opening speed of some apps and explorer going from 256 to 512. From there up, no real change. In fact, right now I have 517 megs free.

 

Did you say 2GB?
Now that's overkill...
The biggest that I have ever seen that XP really needs and might even use, is 768 meg.

There is no "recommended" size.
There is what XP will try and set on it's own.
There is what you and I think is reasonable.
There is too small, causing errors.
There is too large, causing people to post too much about how big their's is
There is what works for YOU on YOUR system.

General "rule of thumb" of 1.5 x RAM does work, but only up to about 512 meg of RAM, thus having a swap/pagefile of about 768 meg.
Adding RAM to 1 gig, 2 gig, or even 3 gig should result in a SMALLER pagefile, not bigger, as it won't be used as much.
Even with 512 RAM, and 768 swap, usage rarely goes over about 400, and that's editing some pretty huge files.
Disable/uninstall about 30 of the icons you have in the taskbar, and you'll need even less swap.

 

From what I have read in this post and others plus what little I did use XP, I am very glad to stick with my rock solid Win98 SE where I have complete control of what happens or don't happen.

If you guys really knew what I have taken out of SE you would more than likely wet your pants. And what I do shutdown or take out * STAYS * that way. Unlike ME and XP that may put it back just because it THINKS I need it.

At this time I see XP as nothing more than an overpriced, space hogging, piece of software. And one that winds up not doing any more than what I am right now with SE.

No problems with a swap ( page ) file set to my specs. No problems with Windows ME defrag. The biggest reason I went to SE is so I could re-install if needed with just one set of files and not two.

Again, at this time I see NOTHING useful in XP at all.

But that * MIGHT * change when I can get it back on a machine all by itself where I can really get into it and see what is what. And see how it behaves for me.

BillyBob