jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) (04/02/91)
I need to defragment by disk -- ie, put all the little unused blocks next to one another, and put all of the little used blocks close together. Simple stuff -- but what software is available? Freeware/shareware is good, if it's reliable, but commercial software is fine too.
reisert@mast.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) (04/02/91)
DOG303 just appeared on SIMTEL20 in PD1:<MSDOS.DSKUTL> (I think). It now supports DOS 4.0, and seems to do an adequate job (I tested it very quickly). - Jim =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "The opinions expressed here in no way represent the views of Digital Equipment Corporation." James J. Reisert Internet: reisert@mast.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corp. UUCP: ...decwrl!mast.enet!reisert 146 Main Street Voice: 508-493-5293 Maynard, MA 01754 FAX: 508-493-????
nyet@nntp-server.caltech.edu (n liu) (04/02/91)
jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) writes: >I need to defragment by disk -- ie, put all the little unused blocks >next to one another, and put all of the little used blocks close >together. Simple stuff -- but what software is available? >Freeware/shareware is good, if it's reliable, but commercial software >is fine too. I too, am interested in this, since there are about 5 billion shareware defraggers around, and don't have the time to sort through them. VOPT was one of my favorites, but it only worked on 32Meg or less partitions. Does anybody know if there's an updated version around? Incidentally, I have norton 4.5, and speed disk is way too smart ... it takes about 10 times longer than vopt did, even in the "quick" mode. Any suggestions? Thanks. nye
kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) (04/03/91)
In article <10286@pitt.UUCP> jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) writes: >I need to defragment by disk -- ie, put all the little unused blocks The answer depends partly on how big your disk partitions are and what version of DOS you are using. In the past I used a shareware program called DOG (for Disk OrGanizer). It worked well for partitions <32M under DOS 3.x or less. I haven't used it for a long time; the recent versions may overcome these limits. I have used Norton's program and it works well but is VERY slow (it tends to move every block on the disk every time you run it). My personal preference is the COMPRESS program that comes with PC Tools. I don't use all the "pieces" of the package but I think the parts I do use are well worth the approx. $80 price. -- ======================================================== Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (04/04/91)
>>I need to defragment by disk -- ie, put all the little unused blocks >>next to one another, and put all of the little used blocks close >>together. Simple stuff -- but what software is available? >>Freeware/shareware is good, if it's reliable, but commercial software >>is fine too. I've always used Mace Unfrag. No problems, even with a Windows Permanent Swapfile. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
winata@cat25.cs.wisc.edu (Charles Winata) (04/04/91)
In article <1050@pallas.athenanet.com> kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: >In article <10286@pitt.UUCP> jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) writes: >>I need to defragment by disk -- ie, put all the little unused blocks > >The answer depends partly on how big your disk partitions are and >what version of DOS you are using. In the past I used a shareware >program called DOG (for Disk OrGanizer). It worked well for partitions ><32M under DOS 3.x or less. I haven't used it for a long time; the >recent versions may overcome these limits. >I have used Norton's program and it works well but is VERY slow >(it tends to move every block on the disk every time you run it). >My personal preference is the COMPRESS program that comes with >PC Tools. I don't use all the "pieces" of the package but I think >the parts I do use are well worth the approx. $80 price. > >Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 >Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com >Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 Well, you can't just accuse Norton's SD Ken. It tends to move up all the blocks because it's alogarhytm is to pu .COM and .EXE in the 'Fast Tracks' (term used by FastTrax) that is the Sectors closest to the FAT. Compress, especially the old one, just makes the file defragmented but put it whereever in the HD, that's why it's fast. The best defragmenter for me is FastTrax. Here, you have the conrtrol of where you can put your file. Usually tou would like to put your most used program in the 'Fast tracks'. And you can put porgrams or directories that you seldomly use in the end part of the disk/slow tracks :-). And this very useful. You can put your data in a certain place of your disk so whenever it expands or shrinks it would not affects your disk performance a lot. With this method, the next time you defragment your HD, it will only defrag- ment the datafiles. All the program files will not be touch, since you didn't fool around with executables, overlays, etc, dont't you (at least most of us don't)? So, FastTrax will be better in the long run. I am just wondering why Norton, and PCTools don't try to implement this into their defragmenter. You know how it feels when SD and compress put your data directory in the beginning sectors in your HD, that mean all your HD's block will be scrambled all over when you do another session of defragmenting. Hope this help! -- EEEEE X X EEEEE DDDD RRRR AAA E X X E D D R R A A Charles Winata EEEEE X EEEEE D D RRRR AAAAA winata@garfield.cs.wisc.edu E X X E D D R R A A winata@picard.cs.wisc.edu EEEEE X X EEEEE DDDD R R A A
derek@foster.actrix.gen.nz (Derek Foster) (04/04/91)
jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) writes: > I need to defragment by disk > [..] > together. Simple stuff -- but what software is available? Compress - PC-Tools Speed Disk - Norton Utilities Both commercial.. I use both & haven't had problems with either of these excellent programs. For speed, I'd say Compress was the better of the two.. IMHO of course. Regards, dF (No connections with either company, just a happy customer..) -- derek@foster.actrix.gen.nz : ``After listening carefully to the material BlueS InC. PO BoX 12-420 : you submitted, I'm afraid it's not what WellingtoN NeW ZealanD : we're looking for at this time...''
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) (04/04/91)
kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: > I have used Norton's program and it works well but is VERY slow > (it tends to move every block on the disk every time you run it). I dunno which version of Norton you're using, but SPEEDISK.EXE in Norton 5.0 only moves every block on the disk if you choose "Full Defragmentation". If you choose "Fragmented Files Only", it will only move around files that are fragmented, and is generally much faster. The disadvantage is that this tends to leave lots of little holes of free space on you disk, which means it gets re-fragmented much faster. What we REALLY need is a smarter filesystem that makes some attempt to keep files contiguous. -- Marc Unangst | mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us | "Bus error: passengers dumped" ...!umich!leebai!mudos!mju |
winata@cat6.cs.wisc.edu (Charles Winata) (04/04/91)
In article <1msVZ2w163w@foster.actrix.gen.nz> derek@foster.actrix.gen.nz (Derek Foster) writes: >jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) writes: > >> I need to defragment by disk >> [..] >> together. Simple stuff -- but what software is available? > > Compress - PC-Tools > Speed Disk - Norton Utilities > >Both commercial.. I use both & haven't had problems with either of these >excellent programs. For speed, I'd say Compress was the better of the >two.. IMHO of course. > >Regards, dF > >(No connections with either company, just a happy customer..) > >-- >derek@foster.actrix.gen.nz : ``After listening carefully to the material >BlueS InC. PO BoX 12-420 : you submitted, I'm afraid it's not what >WellingtoN NeW ZealanD : we're looking for at this time...'' I like Compress better than Speed Disk too. But to be fair, you can't say Compress is actually faster than Speed disk. If you use the same method of defragmenting (Compress can change it's alogarhytm like Speed Disk) for both, they will run in approx the same speed. -- EEEEE X X EEEEE DDDD RRRR AAA E X X E D D R R A A Charles Winata EEEEE X EEEEE D D RRRR AAAAA winata@garfield.cs.wisc.edu E X X E D D R R A A winata@picard.cs.wisc.edu EEEEE X X EEEEE DDDD R R A A
awhite@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Andrew J. White) (04/05/91)
In article <XkuuZ4w164w@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes: >kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: >> I have used Norton's program and it works well but is VERY slow >> (it tends to move every block on the disk every time you run it). I use OPTUNE from Gazelle, and it is MUCH faster... sometimes by as much as 500%... than Norton's SPEEDISK. >I dunno which version of Norton you're using, but SPEEDISK.EXE in >Norton 5.0 only moves every block on the disk if you choose "Full >Defragmentation". If you choose "Fragmented Files Only", it will only >move around files that are fragmented, and is generally much faster. >The disadvantage is that this tends to leave lots of little holes of >free space on you disk, which means it gets re-fragmented much >faster. ... You can also turn VERIFICATION off which speeds things up a lot. -- __________________________________________________________________________ Andrew J. White | U. of Pennsylvania | awhite@eniac.seas.upenn.edu Comp. Science 1993 | School of Engineering | whiteaj@clutx.clarkson.edu
depeche@cs.mcgill.ca (Acme Instant Dehydrated Boulder Kit) (04/09/91)
In article <1050@pallas.athenanet.com> kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: >In article <10286@pitt.UUCP> jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) writes: >>I need to defragment by disk -- ie, put all the little unused blocks > >I have used Norton's program and it works well but is VERY slow >(it tends to move every block on the disk every time you run it). >My personal preference is the COMPRESS program that comes with >PC Tools. I don't use all the "pieces" of the package but I think >the parts I do use are well worth the approx. $80 price. BARF! that norton speed disk is so brain-damaged I get sick every time I watch it run.. You can tell that it takes files which are in the way and writes them temporarily to the next consecutive free blocks on the disk, and then puts the file it is working on where that old file was... But then it gets to the SAME file it just moved before and places it just a little further back on the disk AGAIN, and it sometimes takes the same file and pushes it back a little at a time 10 TIMES in a session!!! And if you abort in the middle and start it again, you KNOW that the portion of the disk that was defragged before you aborted is still degragged, but what does Norton's Speed DIsk do? it defraggs it AGAIN!!!! AAARRRGHHHH!!! I saw it 3 years ago and noticed this, and then someone showed me a new version of the software AND IT HASN'T CHANGED!! When are those norton guys going to do something about it? I wish I had the sourcecode so I could program an intelligent algorithm into it. It'd even do it for free if the guys at norton would let me!! -- |S. Alan Ezust : McGill University School of Computer Science | |depeche@cs.mcgill.ca : Montreal, Quebec, Canada | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|