Optimizing and Restore Points

[mox575]

While doing a Fast Optimize, I noticed that many of the files that were being placed toward the beginning of the drive were Restore Data. This seems to be defeating the whole purpose of optimizing. I understand that many of those files were just created and thus would be looked at as recently used. Wouldn't it be more efficient to specifically place Restore files near the end of the drive being that they are seldom, if ever used?

[Melvin_Deal]

While doing a Fast Optimize, I noticed that many of the files that were being placed toward the beginning of the drive were Restore Data. This seems to be defeating the whole purpose of optimizing. I understand that many of those files were just created and thus would be looked at as recently used. Wouldn't it be more efficient to specifically place Restore files near the end of the drive being that they are seldom, if ever used?

 

 

Welcome to the Iobit furums!

 

Have you recently used one of those files or re-formatted?

 

Why do you think that many of those files were just created?

 

How far back do your system restore points go in time?

 

Sincerely,

-Mel

Live long and prosper!

[mox575]

Have you recently used one of those files or re-formatted? No

Why do you think that many of those files were just created? I have installed and uninstalled several programs in the last few days, thus creating several restore points.

I have 10 restore points created in the last 7 days.

How far back do your system restore points go in time?2 weeks

[Melvin_Deal]

Hi mox575! Thank you for your prompt reply!

 

I think your suggestion would be difficult to achieve considering the way the SD engine works. I am not sure of this, and others will be viewing this and posting as well.

 

For S/D to selectively move restore points to the back of your drive would require a complete re-write. I think it not reasonably possible considering the way SD works and the various platforms it works across. The relative size of your restore points should be small anyway.

 

 

Sincerely,

-Mel

Live long and prosper!

[solbjerg]

Hi mox

How did you determine where the restore points were placed?

Could you show by a screenshot, please?

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

While doing a Fast Optimize, I noticed that many of the files that were being placed toward the beginning of the drive were Restore Data. This seems to be defeating the whole purpose of optimizing. I understand that many of those files were just created and thus would be looked at as recently used. Wouldn't it be more efficient to specifically place Restore files near the end of the drive being that they are seldom, if ever used?

[mox575]

Hi solbjerg

I was unable to get a screen capture, sorry.

To answer your question:How did you determine where the restore points were placed?

I saw the light blue block "moving" data to the first row and could see the corresponding file name at the bottom of SD showing the "restore" file being moved.

 

I have another question and can open an additional thread if needed. My question is: I have a Netgear N600 Wireless Duel band router (model wndr3400v2). On this router there is a USB port for a Network drive. After connecting a 2Terabyte drive to this port and mapping it to my PC, I was able to see the drive on "My Computer", but SD did not recognize it. Is there any way to get SD to detect this type of Network drive? They are becoming more and more common. Thank you.

[Toppack]

I have a Netgear N600 Wireless Duel band router (model wndr3400v2). On this router there is a USB port for a Network drive. After connecting a 2Terabyte drive to this port and mapping it to my PC, I was able to see the drive on "My Computer", but SD did not recognize it. Is there any way to get SD to detect this type of Network drive?

 

If you connect the external drive directly to a USB port in the computer, it should be seen by SD,

but I doubt there is a way for it to be recognized if connected to the Router.

 

How did you Map the drive through the Router?

Does it require special Driver-software, that came with Router, so it acts like a Hub?

I did not think that could be done with only Windows-Disk Manager,

and requires 'Virtual-Private-Network' (VPN) software?

 

It seems that going through the Router, to the drive, would be Much Slower,

than a direct connection to computer?

[mox575]

Hi Toppack

 

I presently have the USB drive plugged into one of my USB ports and as you say it is seen by SD and my system as a local drive.

The Netgear USB setup comes with a program called ReadySHARE. Not sure what it encompasses, possibly a driver, not sure.

As far as mapping the drive, I just used the Map Network Drives found in Tools. The USB drive showed up immediately and was very easy to point to. I did not try to map it to the other PC's on my network, though I think it would have been just as easy to set up.

I use the drive for all my backed up files from my home network. It sits on my desk for easy access in case of an emergency, someone can grab it and run out the door.

I didn't use the drive on the router long enough to determine if there was a speed difference. I do think that you would be correct in your assumption though.

[solbjerg]

hi mox

I do not think that the only parameter is last access date, the number of times it has been accessed must play a role too.

In the beginning of the Defrag operation the number of fragments goes up which must mean that it is finding fragments - possibly storing them in the free space temporarly - in the next phase the number goes down which must mean that it is putting together the fragments in relation to what other fragments it belongs to - where upon it probably places them in that place in the disk according to the parameters it have.

You have probably also noticed that the same block may be accessed several times.

I think that it is hard to follow what is going on by looking at the coloured squares. Most of them aren't filled to capacity, the red colour just shows where some fragments are located, and where the rarely used are too.

You see approximately 1000 blocks and if your drive is holding 1 terabytes each square should contain about 1 GB if it is filled to capacity.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

Hi solbjerg

I was unable to get a screen capture, sorry.

To answer your question:How did you determine where the restore points were placed?

I saw the light blue block "moving" data to the first row and could see the corresponding file name at the bottom of SD showing the "restore" file being moved.

 

I have another question and can open an additional thread if needed. My question is: I have a Netgear N600 Wireless Duel band router (model wndr3400v2). On this router there is a USB port for a Network drive. After connecting a 2Terabyte drive to this port and mapping it to my PC, I was able to see the drive on "My Computer", but SD did not recognize it. Is there any way to get SD to detect this type of Network drive? They are becoming more and more common. Thank you.

[mox575]

Hi solbjerg

 

"the number of times it has been accessed must play a role too" Absolutely agree and am pretty sure that it is the main premise of your optimization routine.

 

Usually when I see the restore files being placed in the first row of the display(outer portion of the disk), is after the defragmentation process(the optimization process). I understand what you are describing about block sizes and what is happening within the "blocks" on the display. I go back to the IBM 360/155 days and having to create my own JCL. I am sure things are different nowadays, but I would think the principle would be the same.

[solbjerg]

Hi mox

What Job Control Language did you use?

The speed at the rim is of course the fastest, about the outer third of the disk holds about half the available data keeping area.

One of the parameters I have seen mentioned in discussions about what parameters to use is to place the important system files in the beginning/rim of the disk - which makes a sort of sense - I think I would rather have important necessary files placed there instead of fx. picture files that I the last couple of days had used very much, but it depends on what parameters they have chosen for the placement.

You had the last couple of days uninstalled 10 programs I think you said, but this is not the only times the restore points are created, so I think it is a good idea to keep the restore points readily available.

If every kind of defragmenter used the same parameters I don't think there would be much difference between the different defragmenters.

This I suppose is the reason that the developers do not go into details about what parameters they have chosen.

Cheers

solbjerg

p.s. the speed at which the fragments are accessed is incredibly high - much higher than we are able to percieve - so that I'm not sure we are able to see every fragment being moved.

In fact I think that the window mostly is for users to see that something is happening, and that which fragments that are shown is also chosen by parameters :-)

According to the report legend the restore points is often among the largest fragments and will therefore probably most often show up as noticeable.

 

 

Hi solbjerg

 

"the number of times it has been accessed must play a role too" Absolutely agree and am pretty sure that it is the main premise of your optimization routine.

 

Usually when I see the restore files being placed in the first row of the display(outer portion of the disk), is after the defragmentation process(the optimization process). I understand what you are describing about block sizes and what is happening within the "blocks" on the display. I go back to the IBM 360/155 days and having to create my own JCL. I am sure things are different nowadays, but I would think the principle would be the same.

[Toppack]

Hi Toppack

The Netgear USB setup comes with a program called ReadySHARE. Not sure what it encompasses, possibly a driver, not sure.

As far as mapping the drive, I just used the Map Network Drives found in Tools.

 

Thanks for the Info.

I think 'ReadyShare' Is VPN software, since I know they are now providing ssl-VPN software with Many of their products.

[mox575]

Hi Solbjerg

The JCL that I used was generally created by our operation personnel or myself for a specific purpose(i.g. to read cards in to a sysin file or for creating a special sysut2 tape(really dating myself here) or disk file ).

 

I agree about the pictures thing. Not something that you really need fast access to. Much rather have system/pgm files in that area.

[davexnet]

Perhaps Smart Defrag could implement a facility where the user

could designate "low priority" files; these would not get moved into the

high performance area under any circumstances, even if they're referenced

in the layout.ini

 

I've seen it myself many times - the 50 MB mrt.exe (microsoft malicious

recovery too)l gets downloaded once per month and is never used again.

I've seen it get copied to the high performance area often. Same with the

system restore data, in the folder "System Volume information"

It doesn't have any business in the high performance area.

 

I don't mean to be flip, but blindly moving everything referenced in the

layout.ini is not my idea of a Smart Defrag.

[solbjerg]

Hi davexnet

The problem with that is what "low priority" and "high priority" means to a novice user and to an expert in my opinion :-)

I am afraid that it could cause serious trouble.

To my mind it makes sense that Microftsoft files you mention is moved to the fast tracks in order to catch the malware as quickly as possible, after all they have just downloaded new definition files as I understand you.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

Perhaps Smart Defrag could implement a facility where the user

could designate "low priority" files; these would not get moved into the

high performance area under any circumstances, even if they're referenced

in the layout.ini

 

I've seen it myself many times - the 50 MB mrt.exe (microsoft malicious

recovery too)l gets downloaded once per month and is never used again.

I've seen it get copied to the high performance area often. Same with the

system restore data, in the folder "System Volume information"

It doesn't have any business in the high performance area.

 

I don't mean to be flip, but blindly moving everything referenced in the

layout.ini is not my idea of a Smart Defrag.

[davexnet]

Hi davexnet

The problem with that is what "low priority" and "high priority" means to a novice user and to an expert in my opinion :-)

I am afraid that it could cause serious trouble.

To my mind it makes sense that Microftsoft files you mention is moved to the fast tracks in order to catch the malware as quickly as possible, after all they have just downloaded new definition files as I understand you.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

Not necessarily. "low priority" by default would include nothing.

Even if something inappropriate were added, the worst it would do would

impact on performance (perhaps). Nothing wrong with an "expert" feature

 

A new version of mrt.exe gets downloaded once per month with the

Windows update cycle. It runs once (right then) and is never run again

unless the user looks for it and specifically runs it.

[solbjerg]

Hi Davexnet

Ok Dave, but my thought about high and low priority was how a novice would know what was high and what was low, when determining where to place the item he wants to have in the fast or less fast tracks? :-)

By the way the disks in the computer rotates with more than 100 revolutions per second so the amount of time we are talking about is very small. The outer third of a disk hold about ½ the amount of available space for data - some people fill almost their entire disk with data - we have seen several here that had less than 10% free space left.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

Not necessarily. "low priority" by default would include nothing.

Even if something inappropriate were added, the worst it would do would

impact on performance (perhaps). Nothing wrong with an "expert" feature

 

A new version of mrt.exe gets downloaded once per month with the

Windows update cycle. It runs once (right then) and is never run again

unless the user looks for it and specifically runs it.

[davexnet]

I understand what you're saying . I think you have to trust users a little.

BY default, any high or low priority files, assuming such a facility were

added, would start out with nothing defined (in my mind "low priority"

by itself is better). If users don't know how to use it, they shouldn't use it.

 

The way I see it working, as I said earlier , is that it should override the layout.ini.

I see a lot of stuff get moved to the high performance area

that really don't belong there. Even media files - avi, mp3, mpg

don't have any business there. They do not impact PC boot times, or

application start times.

 

By ignoring these files, the high performance area would be smaller and cleaner,

and more likely stay "optimized" for longer.

 

Seems like a no-brainer, give power users some control, and only minimal

impact if used improperly.

I think it's a good idea. You still have the "smart" defrag, but with a little

bit more control for those who want it.

 

I would like to see the option to add a whole directory,

(eg c:\system volume information)

as well as generic files (eg *.avi) without having to specify a location.

[solbjerg]

Hi Dave

I remember when I was an novice myself (I am still an ordinary user)

At that time I would trust myself to muck up my computer once in awhile - it happens less often now. :-) But I can say that I at that time had only a faint suspicion about which files were high priority and low priority - I think I tended to view them all as high/crucial to the operation of the computer :-)

There is a lot of approaches to how fragments should be defragged and especially how they should be placed, but I am no expert and do not know how much rewriting of code your proposal entails. Perhaps a programmer from IObit will be sufficiently interested in your proposal to take up your idea. :-)

Thanks

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

 

I understand what you're saying . I think you have to trust users a little.

BY default, any high or low priority files, assuming such a facility were

added, would start out with nothing defined (in my mind "low priority"

by itself is better). If users don't know how to use it, they shouldn't use it.

 

The way I see it working, as I said earlier , is that it should override the layout.ini.

I see a lot of stuff get moved to the high performance area

that really don't belong there. Even media files - avi, mp3, mpg

don't have any business there. They do not impact PC boot times, or

application start times.

 

By ignoring these files, the high performance area would be smaller and cleaner,

and more likely stay "optimized" for longer.

 

Seems like a no-brainer, give power users some control, and only minimal

impact if used improperly.

I think it's a good idea. You still have the "smart" defrag, but with a little

bit more control for those who want it.

 

I would like to see the option to add a whole directory,

(eg c:\system volume information)

as well as generic files (eg *.avi) without having to specify a location.