Diskeeper 2007 vs PerfectDisk v8
Well, just after testing PerfectDisk v8, I decided to uninstall it and try Diskeeper 2007. This is the image map of Diskeeper 2007 of my C: drive, just defragmented with PerfectDisk. The red spaces means poor performance files, and I trusted more in Diskeeper algorithm. I solved many performance issues based on this analysis.
Diskeeper defragmentation method is improved in new version. It looks a little different than previous release, but still preserve a professional look, maybe not so easy to understand for beginners when start using this tool. Background defragmentation is running while I'm writing this blog. I don't feel any running slower on my computer, Diskeeper 2007 seems to use even less resources than previous version, and running at low priority (CPU priority) I cannot notice it is running at all. PerfectDisk uses normal priority (CPU priority), so while it was running, things were turning a little slower, so I decided to do another thing until PerfectDisk finished.
I tested Diskeeper in server environments too, I have to be clear: I can't trust on another defragmentation tool on Servers (specially critical production servers).
I'll keep Diskeeper.
posted by D@nny @ 7:55 AM
4 Comments:
Hi D@nny,
Interesting post. For additional testing, I would suggest you test on large, full drives that are heavily fragmented. Also check to see if free space is consolidated with Diskeeper, as well as all metadata files. Then check total reources used once the drive is completely defragmented with Diskeeper, or when Diskeeper indicates the drive is defragmented.
Thanks,
Joe Abusamra
Raxco Software, Inc.
www.perfectdisk.com
[Taken from Diskeeper's FAQs]
Why doesn't Diskeeper move all of the files into one place on the volume?
Our primary philosophy with Diskeeper is improving and maintaining the performance of your computer. The disk drives are the primary bottleneck in your computer's performance. Diskeeper restores the disks to top speed by eliminating fragmentation.
It is a common misconception that a defragmented disk should look very neat and tidy in the Volume Map tab, with solid blue bars all the way across the screen (representing fragmentation-free files) and the rest white space (representing consolidated space).
Clearly, the speed of the volume (meaning how fast you can access the data on it) is more important than the prettiness of the display or the consolidation of all the free space into one place. Free space consolidation might be important if the next file that you plan to create needs to be one gigantic contiguous file, but it has no effect on performance. In fact, the operating system may or may not write the next file into a contiguous location—even if there is a large enough space.
Because of this, when using the "Quick" or "Recommended" defragmentation methods, Diskeeper uses algorithms that achieve the highest speed from your volumes regardless of the arrangement of the free spaces on the disk and on the screen—and it does so without wasting time on excessive consolidation of free space. We simply go for the fastest possible file access times and then stop.
Even so, you might ask why we don't continue and rearrange the files further to get a neat display? Because it takes computer power to do so. We long ago decided that it would be wrong for Diskeeper to consume more of your computer's performance than it gives back. So Diskeeper defragments until the disk is in top shape performance-wise and then stops.
Now this might not be important to you if you like to sit and watch the display as Diskeeper defragments your drive, but it is a very big deal to large corporate data centers and people who depend on their computers for their work. They need all the performance they can get and can't hold up production while the defragmenter works to enhance the "look" of the disk but not improve its performance. This is why Diskeeper is designed to run automatically in the background, giving way to any other program that needs to run. And it is also why Diskeeper stops defragmenting when maximum performance has been achieved.
Agree 100% that performance is the goal. Raxco Software makes no mention of pretty bitmaps being important, that is Diskeeper's spin. Regarding Diskeeper's FAQ, since it says "...free space consolidation might be important if the next file that you plan to create needs to be one gigantic contiguous file, but it has no effect on performance," I would offer that that the file does not have to be gigantic if the free space chunk is extremely fall. My suggestion for the original test I proposed still stands.
Thanks,
Joe
Joe,
I'll try Perfect Disk again.
Post a Comment
<< Home