Diskeeper 11 vs Perfect Disk 8

Discussion in 'General Software Discussion' started by Chaos, Nov 6, 2006.

  1. rms13

    rms13 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am not arguing with this. Quite contrary, I am using DK on servers and recommending it to almost anyone as the best defrag for server. What I am saying though, is that I haven't seen any proof that it could show any measurable difference on the properly maintained home computer - that is, on which Windows built-in defrag is running at reasonable intervals.
    That is true, but in essence the main difference between server and workstation is more like difference between transport flow in the city, and one individual car. You can consider the first measurable, predictable in most ways. And it is done so when creating transport flow control systems. While, other-single car, may be predictable too in minds of creators of, for example, automatic intelligent gearboxes, but in fact is not. This is a mistake that serious car manufacturers have done(like even BMW), and defrag software vendors are doing too.
    The computer in test was not used for web browsing. Instead, it was intensively used whole week for preparing a project - that is why 10hours/day. The most used programs were Bentley micro station, then Visio for preparing diagrams, Acrobat for creating pdf's. The only thing - files were stored on data partition and ready files transferred to server.

    And, as using Micro Station was kinda unusual, I have specially tested Autocad startup times instead, as it is in general much more important application, along with Photoshop. That is a real life situation, you know, not some kind of artificial test drive.

    <br />
    Exactly, but as I said already, there is no way average user could really test it. Instead, user may(and does) feel better, because this is a general mood(created by vendors) out there. Similar as so many are buying different cleaners that simply find *.bak files, or registry tools that do very primitive job, but makes people happy.

    Probably not, or maybe yes, but at least Mark Russinovich has created something like contig, which if paired with power defrag, is FREE and quite adequate for every home user needs.
    Unfortunately, I haven't seen any vendor advertising similar free solutions.

    I see server exactly as a dividing line. Completely different concept, and different approach needed.
    Thank you for that.
    I hope you will help to understand how your product is $100 better than properly used Windows built-in defrag, combined with good general computer practices, then.
    :)
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2006
  2. rms13

    rms13 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I haven't misunderstood anything.
    You are advertising that you are accelerating file operations. I am showing that in the real world it will not give any significant improvement, except some satisfaction from newest latest program working on your computer.

    I completely agree with you on corporate market, and I am not arguing with you there. I am talking about home user, who is made to believe that those same corporate benefits will apply to him too.

    It is not a scientific test.
    I am just showing that, on the real properly maintained system, your program does not show any noticeable gain, as contrary to your specially conditioned test systems.

    And yes, I can run products sequencially in this case.
    I have given one week for your product to improve perfomance on the computer, previously regularly defragmented with built in defrag. If you are interested in results before DK, here they are:
    Startup - 31.3; Lotus - 5.9 + 7.2; Photoshop 18.4; Autocad 26.6

    If it didn't do anything in 1 week, that is exactly what I wanted to show.
    For PerfectDisk, I just wanted to show that famous boot optimization, which is different from MS one, does not show advertised efffect. Everything else is so straightforward there, that nothing to test, in fact.

    And, tests were timed exactly as they should - by capturing the whole process, including stopwatch, on the tape and later calculating the result. I have done that before with bootvis, but that is yet another program running.

    Are you seriously suggesting that 100 tests would reveal something unusual? I have done enough tests before, and, unfortunately haven't noticed that yet.
    I can reveal that I am also a victim, and kinda looking for that miracle to happen, too. And I somewhat believe that defrag could be made that would really speed up system a bit. It just didn't happen to see one yet.
    What caching? As you see, computer was switched off every time.

    That is correct, even that claim is also not really serious, based just on last modified date. But they also claim to improve boot time, which does not really happen.

    I think that MS have improved the boot thing recently. And, now they move layout files to some specific position evety time you run built in defrag. Even if PD relocated them, next built in defrag pass puts them back to MS suggested place, not some free space.

    I didn't say built-in moved them after IFAAST, PD did. Obviously, differences between built-in and IFAAST are caused by other factors, not layout file placement(if it really works exactly the same as built-in).

    Computer was switched off every time.

    It is not only creating. The point is - any operation in folder with many files causes that overhead. It can be 5 minutes or more till you get to right click menu when selecting 10,000 files.
    Yes. Could you please explain, what is the purpose of reserved space (other than to just occupy the best disk location), if you are increasing MFT itself?

    As I said before, computer was properly maintained, which is the whole point. If I have to specially fragment files to see any effect of $100 program, then sorry - I didn't do that.

    Sorry, could you please repeat a link to a paper which explains how to reproduce results on real computer, compared to defragmenting with built-in defrag?

    Thanks.
    Exactly, MFT will not fragment until ther is reserved zone adjacent to it. And that zone will not disappear until you do not abuse (i.e. overfill) the disk. 500% is that reserved space was about 5 time larger than MFT itself.

    Fine, just tell me please, how can I verify that on real home computer (which is not intended for performing continuously repeted tasks, like server or corporate computer may be). And not compared to some specially trashed computer, but properly maintained one.

    Thanks.
     
  3. gshayes

    gshayes New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Folks, sorry for the delay in responding. My day job keeps me busy and I don't hang out in the online forums like this constantly :)

    Couple of things:

    I had earlier mentioned Raxco's patent-pending Resource Saver technology. This is technology that has been around in PerfectDisk for a while. Raxco started the patent process a while back (folks may or may not know how long it takes to patent something) and shortly before the launch of PD8 received the "patent-pending" nod from the US Patent and Trade Office. This technology results in less disk I/O required in order to defragment a file and was one of the reasons that PD was the first to support multi-tb drives and today will run on even larger drives where most other defragmenters really struggle. From a workstation perspective, do you care? Probably not. From an enterprise perspective (production servers), this is really important.
    -------------------------
    I think that there are some mis-perceptions on how PD works in conjuction with Windows prefetching and layout.ini. PD can either be configured to manage the boot files (subset of layout.ini files - relating specifically to system boot), to manage all of the layout files (all of the layout.ini files), to let Windows manage these files, or to completely disable so that nobody is managing these files. With the default setting of having PD manage the boot files, what PD is doing is telling Windows to NOT manage these files - meaning that Windows is configured so that when the idleprocess tasks run, Windows no longer executes defrag.exe /B (defrag.exe is the command line interface to the built-in defragmenter and /B tells it to do a partial defrag of just the boot files). This is to eliminate any "thrashing" between having PD move the boot files to where it wants them to be and Windows moving the boot files where it decides to place them. Note that during a normal online defrag by the built-in defragmenter, the built-in defragmenter reads layout.ini and will NOT move the files - it knows to leave them where they are located on the drive. If PD is configured to let Windows manage these files, then PD will mark these files as excluded and NOT move them at all. If PD is configured to disable, then neither PD or the built-in defragmenter are going to do anything with these files. Note that if Windows is executing defrag.exe /B, the built-in defragmenter is going to try to "move" the boot files to the first place on the drive that will hold all of these files - which is typically toward the end of the drive as that is where typically the free space is located (assuming any sort of free space consolidation is occuring). Note that when performing the partial defrag of the boot files, the built-in defragmenter does NOT create contiguous free space to put these files into - it depends on that contiguous free already being there. For the vast majority of systems, having PD manage the boot files results in anywhere from a 10-30% improvement in boot speed. Will all systems see the high end of this? Nope. Will all systems see the low end of this? Nope. Are there cases where no improvement in boot speed is seen? Yep. Are there case where an improvement is made but people don't necessarily notice (ie boot speed goes from 30 seconds to 20 seconds)? Certainly - but you can't deny that an improvement wasn't made. Are there people that think that Windows can do a better job of managing the boot files? Yep. The nice thing is that with PD you have a choice.
    -------------------------
    Regarding benchmarking on a system by using your stop watch to measure boot speed and application launches. Some people see no improvement beyond what the built-in defragmenter provides. Others see a major improvement. It really depends on how fragmented the boot files and application files are. They are lightly fragmented (or not fragmented at all), then it is certainly possible for you to see no improvement beyond what the built-in defragmenter provides. But keep in mind that with these types of benchmarks, you are measuring read performance - not write performance. That is why I'm a big fan of independent benchmark tools that measure both read and write performance.
    -------------------------
    For some people, the built-in defragmenter does an adequate job - especially in the optimal environment of plenty of free space and no very large files (the built-in defragmenter requires contiguous free space the size of a file in order to defragment that file). However, you hear more complaints about the built-in defragmenter and it's many limitations than you hear people praising it :)
    -------------------------

    This has been an interesting conversation but I have to get back to my day job. The best advice that I can give to people is this. Just as you try 3rd party anti-virus/anti-spam/email clients/etc... don't feel shy about trying a 3rd party defragmenter. Only you can decide if the cost of the software is worth the benefit that you feel that you get from it. If you don't feel the benefits are worth the cost, then if you are happy with the built-in defragmenter then stick with it. As I mentioned earlier - it does an adequate job for some people.

    - Greg/Raxco Software
    Microsoft MVP - Windows File Systems

    Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.
     
  4. mike2h

    mike2h New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    6,359
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ty for time & info! fwiw i notice an improvement in bootup with pd over win. not much but enough thatim very happy with your prog. still got to try dk though;)
     
  5. Robert McClelland

    Robert McClelland I'm An Uncle for 2nd time Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Messages:
    15,327
    Likes Received:
    255
    Trophy Points:
    108
    Hi this good thread. I'd love 10 diskeeper pro premier so far I love it :) You do have do boot defrag too that does help. I'd used Ifaast all the time. IS MFT really that help? I did with my hard drive I ran it I don't notice that it hurt it or not.
     
  6. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i've seen some of info that was pass by my reading in the past about people were saying that they had problem with their software/firmware RAID configured drives when they used Diskeeper 10, so this is not just the info on this specific thread alone. however, i also used Intel software RAID drives at the time i tested the Diskeeper 10, i remember i tried everything on the software program, its Frag shield and all. however, there was no problem with the file system or anything that were on my RAID drives at that time, but since i only tried it for like a week, so i'm not sure whether or not there was exist a real problem with Diskeeper 10 and RAID drives.
    there was one thing that i also remember that i had to do after i finished testing the Diskeeper 10 and that was to completely format my hard drives again and than to restore all the files and the OS partition itself back on to it from my backup. this because i was not sure whether or not i should leave all the file system that were in the partitions like that after i've played around with the Frag shield's, and since i was not going to use the Diskeeper 10 anymore and i was too lazy to find out any info at the time so i just did that.
     
  7. ScythedBlade

    ScythedBlade New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My Final Verdict

    In the end, I got so confused, so I did some researching. So, here's the thing that I believe everyone should refer to:

    PerfectDisk deframents your drive so that you don't have to defragment it so much. It's because the algorithm it uses places the most used files on the inner tracks. Theoretically, most used files tend to update themselves. So they place new files after. Therefore, it really doesn't need to defragment itself that much.

    Diskeeper, on the other hand, places more used files near the outer tracks. Therefore, you should see somewhat more of an improvement in accessing files of the recent one. However, it fragments extremely easily since the most recently files updates itself and may run outta space, making it into the inner tracks. This is usually why diskeeper needs to constantly defrag.

    See how your hard drives work. If you have 25 GB on a friken 750 GB hard drive like I do, nothing really matters. However, if you have a computer that's really wasted (dual core C2D overclocked 70%) you might as well use diskeeper. It'll wear out your hard drive a lot faster than PerfectDisk will. If you want efficiency, perfectdisk. Performance, diskeeper. (it's like asking if you want that core 2 duo to be overclocked or speedstepped ... goddamnit, if it was only this easy with defragmenters)
     
  8. Jeremy of Many

    Jeremy of Many New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess the sad truth is that there really is no 100% "this is my spot for best performance" area for each file. I'm starting to think that each defragmenter just does the best it can given whatever algorithm it goes by. Diskeeper confuses me with all the percentages and statistics it comes up with when you open the Diskeeper.msc. Minimal access time and percentage, gibble gobble. I like that it defrags in "real-time" (aka whenever your system has idle resources for it to run). However, for those of you who do anything CPU intensive on a constant basis like SETI@Home or Folding@Home which runs in low priority 24/7, get ready for Diskeeper's InvisiTasking not working at all, ever. I've been doing the SETI@Home for a few weeks now and my C: drive (which is 150 GBs and has 7.21 GBs used space was at a 4% fragmentation level. The excess fragments were massive! the moment I stopped SETI@Home, the fragments went down to a mere 8.
    But that's just defragmenting, not file placement (which is where PerfectDisk would kick in) and what Diskeeper says "this file could be placed here to minimize access time). it makes you want to use both PerfectDisk and Diskeeper, which would be either harmful or redundant, or both.
    That brings me to my next point: Diskeeper's InvisiTasking is essentially like transparent scheduling. It is set to always run, wait for idle resources to operate. It's automated. PerfectDisk's AutoPilot is essentially the same thing, it just requires one extra step from the end-user.
    In my opinion, the difference between these two applications is becoming smaller and smaller as I look into this.
    Their marketing is crap, just ignore it. get down to the nitty gritty to understand their functionality completely, but then back up a few steps and look at this in simpler terms.
    They both defragment. One places files sequentially for best access time based on a file frequency of access algorithm, and the other does relatively the same thing based on a file modification date algorithm. The difference between those two algorithms is what... a millisecond of access time for some files?
    If that's true, then does it really make the slightest bit of difference whether you use Diskeeper or PerfectDisk, or UltimateDefrag or O&O Defrag or Vopt?
     
  9. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    I like the pretty colors.
     
  10. Storm8873

    Storm8873 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've tried Diskeeper 11 out and it seemed pretty good but I thought I'd give PerfectDisk 8.0 a go. It trashed the boot sector of my hard drive when it did the offline scan. I tried all the fixed on the net using the recovery console (fix boot, fixmbr, copy the ntldr files), but in the end I had to reformat and start again. After reading that a few other people had similar experiences, I thought that PD definitely has a problem with the offline scan.

    Ciao ...
     
  11. Robje

    Robje New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    After reading this thread, which was very informative, I've dicided to go and test both products myself and comparing them to the standard features Windows XP offered. Using, what I perceive as, normal everyday computer usage and a set of fixed scenarios.

    The computer used for these test was a AMD X2 4600+ with 2Gb of RAM and a Raid 0 array consisting of two 160Gb Sata hardisks.

    Before I started the test, I made a ghost image of the PC. This image was used everytime a new product was installed to be tested, so as to create a identical starting point. The PC was used for 2 weeks on end, with my kids playing games, me doing work on various files using Autocad, Office, and some Videoediting software. During this period the partitions ( C- Drive (Windows XP X32): 40Gb (20% Free-space), D-Drive (Games): 120Gb (54% Free-space), E-Drive (Data): 150Gb (10% Free-space)) where defraged every monday, thursday and sunday, using the recommended setting for each product and if available automatic online defragmentation was turned on, again using recommended settings. After 2 weeks of PC use, a final defragmentation was done and various aspects where tested.

    I approached this test as being a regular customer (in fact I,m a IT technician for over 10 years now working with various companies, and developers), meaning I used the information I could find on the various vendors websites for settings and configuration.
    The timings where done using a proffesional stopwatch. I intentionally did not use any fancy timing tool, for a 'normal' non-techie customer wouldn't use such software.

    The strong-point of both products, or the key-selling point for that matter, is a drastic improvement in the speed of your PC. As a regular customer does not care about the dynamics involved, but is just interested in the results, I tested the following:

    Boot-time until logon-screen
    Time after logon until desktop is presented without the hourglass cursor
    Time to open a large moviefile for editing
    Time to save a large moviefile
    Response\boottime of various programs


    After testing one product (and taking avarage times of 10 trials) the PC was cleared and the ghost-image was restored, before installing the next product to be tested.

    And after 6 weeks of testing, what did I find out?

    Well first, that my kids hate me for reseting there save-games every two weeks, and that I've fallen behind more then 6 weeks on social life, the following:

    There is not much difference between the programs in respect to speeding up the PC. At best there was a mere 2 second gap between the products at boot-time or when saving a large-file. The claim of speeding up your PC is at best a nice fairytail (When compared to the standard tools available in Windows XP).

    True, if your PC is cluttered with fragmented files, you can speed it up a lot by defragmenting your harddrives, but they don't do any wonders over the standard defrag tools incorporated in Windows XP. However, in all fairness, with both tools it is easy to automate the process and forget about it. Wheter you want it done real time, or sheduled, depends on your personal preferences.

    As for myself, I was flabbergasted by the results, for I've been using and promoting 3th party defrag tools for as long as I can remember. Sure it makes defragmenting a bit easier than using the standard XP feature, but that's about it. For myself I can no longer justify the expense. Both products work, but their marketing claims are an understatement at best.

    Is the expense for the products justified? That's up to the individual user to decide. For normal everyday PC use, coupled with normal PC maintenance, if speed is your main concern, I think not. If easy of use and\or automation is your goal, then maybe.

    P.S. I congratulate the representatives of both vendors for taking an active part in this discussion! It is not something you see everyday.

    For use in a server environment both vendors offer products that are vastly superior to the incorporated tools of your operating system. But that's a whole different ballgame all together!
     
  12. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Did you measure how long it took to defrag when doing it manually?

    I've never measured but I would bet Perfect Disk is at least 2 times faster than built in defragger- that comes in handy when defragging a 160 and 500GB HD.
     
  13. buddybird

    buddybird New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Trashed boot sector with Perfect Disk

    Whew! For a while, I thought I was going crazy. PD 8 blew out my boot sector at least 3 times before I realized it wasn't me...

    :eek:
     
  14. mike2h

    mike2h New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    6,359
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ive been having probs with pd8 offline to. get weorh errors that rebbots fix but it is still a pain & troublesome.
    this my 3rd upgrade of pd & have never had any issues til now(on 2 comps). hope this isnoy a trend & that they fix soon. otherwise this will be my last purchase/upgrade of their product.
     
  15. Trusteft

    Trusteft HH's Asteroids' Dominator

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2004
    Messages:
    23,777
    Likes Received:
    3,550
    Trophy Points:
    153
    This looks like the best place to ask, regarding Diskeeper 2007. What are the differences between the versions? Apart from the price, I can't find any list of features comparing the different versions. I am thinking of getting the Home but...
     
  16. Xelkos

    Xelkos New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Diskeeper 11 vs Perfect Disk 8, w/ iPod Comment

    Have seen this on my machine too, when I was comparing Perfect Disk to Diskeeper. Acronis TrueImage's Emergency Rebuilder loads on my hard drive, where I could press F12 and recover my OS from the last saved build.

    Was pondering Perfect Disk for it's price, and that it claimed to have a free space optimization tool. The duplicate file finder I thought was a bit extreme for a defragmentation tool, that would be more utility software in my opinion.

    Still, the price was better.


    Tried Diskeeper 2010 and it was able to do the boot-time defragmentation, thus was the decisive factor.


    Been using Diskeeper since version 10. Had Professional 2008 upgraded by their elevated solutions rep (Fields) when I discovered some hard drive issues. Feedback landed me a copy of Premier Pro 2008.
    Yet was unable to upgrade to Pro Premier 2010 due to being out of work (currently); and the price was indeed a factor & why I was looking for a more affordable alternative
    Luckily I found the older Professional build I had. Bought the $40 upgrade. Asked Diskeeper's Technical Support for another upgrade option - since Professional 2008 wouldn't install, was hard to "upgrade" since it would not install. Diskeeper got back to me the next day and sent links for the full version.

    Diskeeper might not be the more affordable solution out there, but it works, and works quite well.
    On my iPod 160 it defragments rather slowly, using an older 2.5"x2.5" heatsink that I set it on to keep the internal drive from overheating.
    Diskeeper reported 45 fragments prevented, and 129 fragments eliminated on the iPod, @ 40.17 GB of music.

    My 2¢ on iput. :hmm:

    PS: Photos of the iPod 160 & heatsink that I used.


     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2009
  17. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    LOL, it's funny you used that old pic, I haven't tried an offline defrag with PD since then and I probably never will again. Just way too dangerous.
     
  18. Chaos

    Chaos Number Nine

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,260
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Diskeeper 11 vs Perfect Disk 8, w/ iPod Comment

    If you contact PD support there may well be a registry entry to solve that offline defrag problem. Im quite sure i went through that in the past
     
  19. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    The last time I remember trying to fix that it was an incompatibility with deamon tools or similar type programs that use a form of a rootkit to function. AFAIK there was never a solution, but I haven't looked in a while.
     
  20. Xelkos

    Xelkos New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, guess it is funny now that it's not 4:30 AM. Did not even look at the dates, and strange that the issue exists with the current release of PD.

    As for the other fellow, I doubt Rexo would give support to a trial version. Still, Dk gets the job done without needing support.
     

Share This Page

visited