[Suggestion] Consider Low Priority Tasks as Idle

[RoloX2]

Issue: Smart Defrag never runs auto-defrag whilst running distributed computing apps (i.e. Folding@home) since these apps use whatever CPU cycles aren't used by other apps and therefore keep the CPU at 100% utilisation.

 

Suggestion: Provide the option to ignore low-priority tasks or to ignore specific processes/daemons when detecting idle state.

[Scannan]

Hi RoloX2

 

Firstly, I would not recommend using auto defrag, as it will possibly reduce the life of your drive with no appreciable gain in performance. If you want to defrag everytime your system has cpu capacity available, then you will be performing a lot of read/write actions just to achieve miniscule defragmenting. There is no way these defrags will show an obvious improvement in ypur ps performance. It is much better to defrag when it is required...such as when fragments exceed 3/...5% ...etc.

As for ignoring low priority tasks.... you can achieve the same thing by changing the priority of your distributed computing apps in Task Manager and increasing the priority of SD...thereby giving SD priority in the queue for CPU resources.

[RoloX2]

Firstly, I would not recommend using auto defrag, as it will possibly reduce the life of your drive with no appreciable gain in performance.

I don't agree on both counts.

 

Pragmatically speaking, longevity isn't shortened (OK, technically, instead of 20 years out of the drive, I may get 10 or 15...still long beyond its usefulness). Even if longevity were shortened, that's a trade-off I'm willing to make as sometimes performance is more important than longevity (as my car and driving will attest). Moreover, turning an HDD on/off daily (or even worse: put it to sleep multiple times daily) puts far more stress/wear & tear on it than actually using it (mine are on 24/7).

 

As far as perceptible performance increases go, that is what I am evaluating and this is the very feature that got me looking at Smart Defrag first. I noticed an increase in performance with Diskeeper's auto-defrag--but I'm not paying $325 to have it on my home PCs. Without auto-defrag (which sets SD apart from its counterparts), the defrag domain (which is quite populated) becomes wide open and I may like other alternatives better.

 

If you want to defrag everytime your system has cpu capacity available, then you will be performing a lot of read/write actions just to achieve miniscule defragmenting.

Though it isn't apparent in the UI, I should hope that SD is smart enough to not trigger on every idle moment but only at intervals (whether static or dynamic, depending on how "smart" it is). Additionally, I assume the Settings | General Settings | Defragment when fragments exceed x% defines the auto-defrag threshold as well as the manual one.

 

Near-immediate miniscule defragmenting is what I'm after as that should be all there is left to do betwixt sheduled full-defrag & optimise; the purpose of this is to keep the PC optimised, not to have it optimised once/month until it deteriorates a few days later.

 

It is much better to defrag when it is required...such as when fragments exceed 3/...5% ...etc.

As mentioned, SD has a per cent threshold for defragmenting. I don't mind spending a lot of time on initial configuration/testing/tweaking but I absolutely do not want to have to manually fiddle with it indefinitely. There are two main reasons for this:

1. I have five PCs (OK, six if you count the DOS/Win95 box) and that's a lot of maintenance and I have far better ways to spend my time.

2. I build systems and small networks for clients and I always configure a third-party defragmenter (built-in one is ineffective) to automatically run without user intervention.

 

As for ignoring low priority tasks.... you can achieve the same thing by changing the priority of your distributed computing apps in Task Manager and increasing the priority of SD...thereby giving SD priority in the queue for CPU resources.

This is neither effective nor desirable:

- Raising SD's priority won't work since the issue is idle-detection and SD's priority has nothing to do with that

- I want SD to have the lowest possible priority so it doesn't usurp any resources from any other task or reduce overall responsiveness

 

 

There are tasks that run in the background and at intervals that will fragment files (i.e. aforementioned distributed computing apps, Windows Live Mesh, Windows Media Centre, Steam and other OS/software update programs) and having a quick auto-defrag shortly afterwards would readily ensure optimal performance with minimum overhead.

 

As a workaround, I'm using the Scheduled Defrag setting to fully optimise nightly, which isn't as available as auto-defrag and does more work (wear even, if you count that) than leaving it weekly or even monthly. This feature does use Windows Task Scheduler (a Very Good Thing; I hate proprietary, redundant schedulers), so I should be able to create multiple scheduled tasks, bypassing the limiting UI, creating a nightly defrag task, a weekly fast optimise, and a monthly fully optimise. However, this is a work-around and not a fix for auto-defrag being effectively disabled by any distributed computing app.

[Toppack]

I have read several online reports that say defragging as often as you suggest is Not needed,

even for Heavy-use systems.

But hey, it's your computer, and it's okay, if that makes you Happy. :lol:

[RoloX2]

You can't say that when you don't know my application or purpose for it.

 

Anyone can write "online reports"; I've been using HDDs 20+ years, so I'm not really asking for an opinion as I am comfortable with my own.

 

All I am suggesting is to de-conflict an existing feature with an existing, popular app.

[Toppack]

Sorry, I'm just saying that it may be difficult to find many people that agree with you, about how often to defrag. :wink:

(No matter what the computer is used for)

 

Since we are mostly users, on this website, "opinions" are what you will mostly Get here. :lol:

[Melvin_Deal]

Hi RoloX2 welcome to the Iobit forums!

 

You can't say that when you don't know my application or purpose for it.

 

Anyone can write "online reports"; I've been using HDDs 20+ years, so I'm not really asking for an opinion as I am comfortable with my own.

 

All I am suggesting is to de-conflict an existing feature with an existing, popular app.

 

I would love to have this technology... you have a drive that

Pragmatically speaking, longevity isn't shortened (OK, technically, instead of 20 years out of the drive, I may get 10 or 15.

Pragmatically speaking you are planning on using this drive ten or fifteen years from now (year 2022 -2027)... please share what this wonderful drive is so that we all can benefit. (it also may help us all if you fully complete the details within your User CP cinsidering your system details)

 

If the purpose is too keep the PC optomised fully then you certainly understand that this involves many things beyond defragmentation.

the purpose of this is to keep the PC optimised, not to have it optimised once/month until it deteriorates a few days later.

This is neither effective nor desirable:

That is a relative statement and an opinion.

 

I may like other alternatives better.

Okay!!:smile:

 

I don't mind spending a lot of time on initial configuration/testing/tweaking but I absolutely do not want to have to manually fiddle with it indefinitely.

O.K. You don't have to... just uninstall it and go back to doing whatever it was you were doing (as you did not state this). Why do you wish to clog or confuse a user help forum with this. And what is your true question?? If it is about support then the question has been answered.

 

You can't say that when you don't know my application or purpose for it.

This is true because you didn't bother to tell us.

 

There are tasks that run in the background and at intervals that will fragment files (i.e. aforementioned distributed computing apps, Windows Live Mesh, Windows Media Centre, Steam and other OS/software update programs)

Run what you will, make your choices about what you allow to run in the background... and accept the consequences.

 

What is the real point? And what is the real question? There is no need for exteraneous details.:-)

 

 

Sincerely,

-Mel

Live long and prosper!

[Scannan]

Hi RoloX2

 

In addition to providing Melvin with the details of your amazing drive, please also texplain this new theory of conservation of energy and negative effect enthropy, which you seem to have discovered. To use your car analogy, I am sure that you will find that if you leave your car running 24/7, that it will definitely breakdown a lot sooner, than if you actually turn it on and off as required. It is a simple fact of physics, that machines have a finite running life, and while you can achieve the max life span through good maintenance, you certainly cannot extend the lifespan by never turning it off.

As for the priority issue, I am confused....I understood that you were saying that SD did not run auto defrag as it could not access CPU time because it was already being allocated to low priority tasks, and you suggested that SD ignore these tasks and basically bully itself into the CPU resource cue. It then seems to be a contradiction to say the you want SD to have the lowest possible priority.

Then these are all just suggestions...and as you said more than once..you are not here for suggestions.

[RoloX2]

I would love to have this technology... you have a drive that Pragmatically speaking you are planning on using this drive ten or fifteen years from now (year 2022 -2027)... please share what this wonderful drive is so that we all can benefit. (it also may help us all if you fully complete the details within your User CP cinsidering your system details)

 

I don't agree with you and this is how you react?

 

I never said I was planning to use the drive this long; in fact, my point was that I do not plan on using the drive longer than its lifespan--shortened or not, making the shortened lifespan argument moot.

 

Aside from two QC instances in 20+ years (IBM 75GB "DeathStar" and WD Blue fiascos), I have never, ever had a drive fail.

 

If the purpose is too keep the PC optomised fully then you certainly understand that this involves many things beyond defragmentation.

But this is the Smart Defrag forum, not a general PC forum. I don't know what your attempt to lecture is hoping to accomplish relative to the topic.

 

O.K. You don't have to... just uninstall it and go back to doing whatever it was you were doing (as you did not state this).

Why is an IOBit "Malware Advisor Moderator" saying "don't use our product"?

 

Why do you wish to clog or confuse a user help forum with this. And what is your true question?? If it is about support then the question has been answered.

If you do not understand the OP, perhaps you should ask for clarification rather than berate the poster. I believe my OP is clear: I am making a suggestion, not asking a question. The title is [suggestion], not [Question]; I don't know how much clearer I can be.

 

I'll post in the suggestion thread--my mistake; I thought it was full since it wouldn't let me reply at the time (not logged in with that tab perhaps). Sorry to "clog" your Intertubes.

 

This is true because you didn't bother to tell us.

I didn't because it isn't necessary beyond what I've already explained. An existing Smart Defrag feature doesn't work on the millions of PCs running distributed computing apps and I made a suggestion to fix it. I don't need to justify myself (and confuse the issue) as the facts stand on their own.

 

What is the real point? And what is the real question? There is no need for exteraneous details.:-)

My point was succinct but the responses keep asking for extraneous details. :???:

 

In addition to providing Melvin with the details of your amazing drive, please also texplain this new theory of conservation of energy and negative effect enthropy, which you seem to have discovered.

 

I never claimed any HDD defied the second law of thermodynamics. I don't understand why my point that, regardless of use, HDDs--in my experience--last far longer than their usefulness warrants such a rude and childish response from a moderator.

 

To use your car analogy, I am sure that you will find that if you leave your car running 24/7, that it will definitely breakdown a lot sooner, than if you actually turn it on and off as required. It is a simple fact of physics, that machines have a finite running life, and while you can achieve the max life span through good maintenance, you certainly cannot extend the lifespan by never turning it off.

OK not a perfect analogy (unless in extreme cold where some vehicles are kept running 24/7), so let me explain it on-point:

HDD manufacturers are replacing MTBF (reliability based on time) with load/unload cycles (power on/off or sleep) with consumer drives but keeping MTBF for enterprise drives. My WD 2002FAEX drives have a 5-year warranty, 300K load/unload cycles (longevity is inversely proportional to power-cycles) and their enterprise counterparts have 1-1.4M hours (at 24/7) MTBF--that's 114 years worst-case, long after I've had the click of death. Usage/Longevity isn't an issue here as I've stated in my first response and I never asked a longevity question.

 

cf. http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/ovr/eng/2178-001010.pdf

 

As for the priority issue, I am confused....I understood that you were saying that SD did not run auto defrag as it could not access CPU time because it was already being allocated to low priority tasks, and you suggested that SD ignore these tasks and basically bully itself into the CPU resource cue. It then seems to be a contradiction to say the you want SD to have the lowest possible priority.

Low priority tasks are, by definition, "whatever CPU cycles aren't being used", as this is the lowest priority possible; distributed computing uses this priority. Smart Defrag already uses a priority that is one higher ("Below Normal"), so that suggestion isn't applicable for another reason.

 

Again, the priority SD runs has nothing to do with SD's idle detection. I'm not sure if SD has an idle detection on its own beyond just using Windows API but I didn't write SD, so I don't know and I haven't looked at WinAPI since Win2000.

 

Then these are all just suggestions...and as you said more than once..you are not here for suggestions.

Not when they derail the topic or try to dismiss my suggestion to the developers, no.

 

I'm all for detailed discussions but the rudeness and personal attacks are unprofessional, uncalled for, and off-putting. If snide, sardonic remarks are all IOBit moderators (a font of IOBit) have to say in response to a suggestion to improve their product then I shall go elsewhere--Diskeeper's price doesn't seem so bad after all and my clients have done well with other freeware defragmenters.

[wozofoz]

Welcome

 

Issue: Smart Defrag never runs auto-defrag whilst running distributed computing apps (i.e. Folding@home) since these apps use whatever CPU cycles aren't used by other apps and therefore keep the CPU at 100% utilisation.

 

Suggestion: Provide the option to ignore low-priority tasks or to ignore specific processes/daemons when detecting idle state.

Thanks for the suggestion

I'm sure our wonderful and hard working Cicely will read this thread and pass on your suggestion to the IObit Team :smile:

 

All the best, woz of oz

 

Sorry woz, I have closed the thread before seeing your post!

[enoskype]

Hi all,

 

This thread is getting out of control, so if the users of this thread want to continue the subject in a more polite way, please open a new thread.

 

This thread is closed.

 

Moderators, please do not reply in this thread.

 

Thank you and cheers.

 

Sorry enoskype - we must have posted at the same time I think. Cheers solbjerg

[solbjerg]

Hi Rolox2

I find some of your suggestions good, but we must remember that SD is a free program and that IObit consequently probably do not spend as much resources on it as some could wish for - on developing it to be the bar none best defragmenter around. :-)

For example I think that some development of the settings in the automatic and scheduled defragging is a good idea - even though I myself do not use the automatic defragment or scheduled option.

 

p.s. I do hope that you will take this suggestion in the spirit it is offered even though you said that you weren't interested in opinions :-)

 

Cheers

solbjerg

[enoskype]

Wow!

 

Wow, all the ARGUS are watching the same point at the same time.

 

Cheers.

 

EDIT:

http://forums.iobit.com/images/icons/icon4.gif ATTENTION TO THE USERS OF THIS THREAD http://forums.iobit.com/images/icons/icon4.gif

 

I am re-openning this thread for the need of the continuation of the civilized discussions about the subject.

 

I welcome you to continue to discuss the SUBJECT in a manner without any personality issues.

 

I find the following post upto standard so allowing it to be posted with the poster Moderator's request.

[Scannan]

SD Locked Thread

 

RoloX2,

 

I didn't because it isn't necessary beyond what I've already explained. An existing Smart Defrag feature doesn't work on the millions of PCs running distributed computing apps and I made a suggestion to fix it.I don't need to justify myself (and confuse the issue) as the facts stand on their own.

 

Yes you did make a suggestion, and like all suggestions on this Forum, it is greatly appreciated and is taken on board. The questions/discussion are simply to clarify the issue and to tease out further suggestions which may lead to a solution.

 

 

My point was succinct but the responses keep asking for extraneous details. :???:

 

You will have to forgive us, but succint is a relative term...what is succinct to one person is confusing to another. We ask questions in order to better assist.

 

I never claimed any HDD defied the second law of thermodynamics. I don't understand why my point that, regardless of use, HDDs--in my experience--last far longer than their usefulness warrants such a rude and childish response from a moderator.

 

I am sorry you feel my response was rude and childish. I can assure you that it was never my intent to be rude. Indeed, I can safely say that I have never seen either the Moderators/Administrators and or users on this Forum be rude to anyone.

As for being childish.... I would have to be an extremely bright child, just to be able to follow your posts...which are quite comprehensive and detailed.

 

 

OK not a perfect analogy (unless in extreme cold where some vehicles are kept running 24/7), so let me explain it on-point:

HDD manufacturers are replacing MTBF (reliability based on time) with load/unload cycles (power on/off or sleep) with consumer drives but keeping MTBF for enterprise drives. My WD 2002FAEX drives have a 5-year warranty, 300K load/unload cycles (longevity is inversely proportional to power-cycles) and their enterprise counterparts have 1-1.4M hours (at 24/7) MTBF--that's 114 years worst-case, long after I've had the click of death. Usage/Longevity isn't an issue here as I've stated in my first response and I never asked a longevity question.

 

That is very detailed information, but it does not enhance the discussion. If you feel that it is better to run your machine 24/7, then no one is telling you to do otherwise. We are simply saying that we have other opinions as to which is preferrable. It is the one of the great aspects of being human. The ability to agree to disagree, and not fall out as a result.

 

Low priority tasks are, by definition, "whatever CPU cycles aren't being used", as this is the lowest priority possible; distributed computing uses this priority. Smart Defrag already uses a priority that is one higher ("Below Normal"), so that suggestion isn't applicable for another reason.

 

I am sorry and ask your forebearance in advance...but this is extremely confusing...Firstly, how can the definition of a task have anything to do with CPU cycles... surely a definition of a tasks priority would be the position in which it is placed in the queue for available CPU resource..in other words depending on the task priority setting, the system will decide the order in which to alllow tasks to run as and when CPU resource becomes available. Therefore if you set SD priority higher than the other tasks you refer to, then SD will be given priority when CPU resources are available.

 

 

Again, the priority SD runs has nothing to do with SD's idle detection. I'm not sure if SD has an idle detection on its own beyond just using Windows API but I didn't write SD, so I don't know and I haven't looked at WinAPI since Win2000.

 

Regardless of whether it uses it's own detection (which I think is unlikely) or whether it uses Windows API, it's priority will still dictate where in the queue it is positioned for CPU access as resources are released/become available.

 

 

Not when they derail the topic or try to dismiss my suggestion to the

developers, no.

 

Please be assured, that the last thing that will ever happen on this Forum, is that any users suggestion would be dismissed. In fact, because of Iobits strong and dedicated interaction with this Forum, you can be assured that your suggestion will be looked at.

In order to put your mind at rest in this regard, I will PM (private Message) an Iobit member and give them the link for this thread.

 

I'm all for detailed discussions but the rudeness and personal attacks are unprofessional, uncalled for, and off-putting. If snide, sardonic remarks are all IOBit moderators (a font of IOBit) have to say in response to a suggestion to improve their product then I shall go elsewhere--Diskeeper's price doesn't seem so bad after all and my clients have done well with other freeware defragmenters.

 

I am sorry you feel his way. It certainly is not anyones intent, to come across as sardonic or snide. As I said previously, all suggestions are greatly appreciated and all are investigated, so you can be assured that your efforts are appreciated. However, you cannot expect to put forward forceful comment/argument and not expect equally forceful comment/argument in return. We are all volunteers here, and it would be of very little benefit to users, if we simply took every suggestion and said "thank you" and moved on. By discussing it as we do, we actually give the suggestion the recognition due to it, and this usually enables a quicker more effective solution.

 

Whether you decide to stay with us ( which would be preferred) or move on, may I wish you well in your endeavours and hopefully success in having your suggestion implemented,

[RoloX2]

Firstly, how can the definition of a task have anything to do with CPU cycles... surely a definition of a tasks priority would be the position in which it is placed in the queue for available CPU resource..in other words depending on the task priority setting, the system will decide the order in which to alllow tasks to run as and when CPU resource becomes available. Therefore if you set SD priority higher than the other tasks you refer to, then SD will be given priority when CPU resources are available.

I've never disagreed: there are six priority levels, with the highest one taking and keeping everything necessary (REALTIME) and the lowest one (LOW) taking what's left (for the most part; it can compete with higher-priority processes but that's beside the point--just being extremely accurate here). SD runs at the second-lowest priority (BELOW NORMAL) and Folding@home cores run a LOW priority. None of this, however, is relevant to the issue mentioned in the OP (auto-defrag-on-idle/idle detection).

 

Regardless of whether it uses it's own detection (which I think is unlikely) or whether it uses Windows API, it's priority will still dictate where in the queue it is positioned for CPU access as resources are released/become available.

Again, I'm not talking about SD's priority; I'm talking about how SD determines that the computer is idle--not that it doesn't do a good job doing that--it does. The issue is that Folding/BOINC CPUs are never idle, precluding SD's auto-defrag function.

 

My suggestion is to provide an option to account for this by not counting these processes, by user-selectable task name or by specified priority. i.e.:

- I can exclude fahcore*.exe from CPU usage values which will allow SD to consider the computer idle when all it is doing is folding

- I can exclude all LOW priority tasks from CPU usage values which will allow SD to consider the computer idle when all it's doing is folding and/or other background activities without having to specify process names

 

SD's own priority doesn't have any bearing on how it determines how long the PC has been idle.

 

As far as the other stuff...water under the Sandy Bridge...:mrgreen:

[Scannan]

You can set the SD priority in the Task Manager to: Above Normal/High/Realtime

 

You can also adjust the setting in SD settings (see attached screenshot)

[enoskype]

Hi Scannan,

 

I couldn't understand the relation of the size of the files to be neglected for defrag to the subject. :roll:

 

On the other hand the settings for Autodefrag confuses me a bit.

Starting to autodefrag if the system is idle for a defined time (1-10 minutes), but continueing to defrag even with 100% of the CPU is used (By other processes.).

 

I have asked RoloX2 if he had tried 100% CPU and 1 minute options in another thread post, but still do not know what the result is.(EDIT:We have the feedback in the mentioned thread now.)

 

Cheers.

[Scannan]

Enoskype/RoloX2

 

My apology. That was the wrong screenshot. Please see the correct screenshot now attached. Sorry for the confusion.

 

As regard the 100% cpu usage: The settings allows you to pause the defrag if resource usage exceeds your setting ie...20%-40%-.......100%.

 

I am assuming this function works as I have ot been able to test it.

 

If the CPU is running 100% then it will not allow anything else to run. It will either simply queue the task and wait for resources to release..it will not hakt a running task mid stream simply because Sd has a higher priority,

[RoloX2]

It's a no-go :cry:

 

The first option (Start Auto Defrag when system idle exceeds...) will only start if the computer has been idle for at least x minutes.

 

Let's say you have that option set for 5 minutes. You're using your PC then get a phone call that lasts 5 minutes. Next, you go back to using your PC, which has now been idle for 5 minutes and as such, SD starts running right before you begin to use it and then, after a pause, aborts because of the next option:

Pause Auto Defrag when resource usage exceeds 60%.

 

Your usage hits 70% and the PC is, overall, less responsive because it just started/stopped several things at once that involved HDD I/O. That could get annoying.

 

I infer that if I have the first option set at 10 minutes that SD would auto defrag every 10 minutes; if the PC were idle for say, 10 hours, then auto-defrag would trigger ~60 times. (I guess I'll pause folding and test it.)

 

I would suggest a wider range than 1-10 minutes (i.e. 1-60 mins, then 2-24 hours on the slider)

[Scannan]

I agree that it would appear that a see-saw effect could occur. However I think that Sd would begin defrag after lets's say 5 minutes, then if the resource usage exceeded the setting it would pause, not stop, wait for resource to drop below the set level again and resume its defrag. This whole reasoning is designed to prevent Sd from hogging resource and slowing the system. If it is paused then it cannot be responsible for slowing the system....in fact it is the other items which are running which are slowing the system.

[enoskype]

RoloX2, is your choise for " Defragment when fragment exceed: " in dropdown menu " Always defrag " under Defragmentation in General Settings of Settings?

 

I would try auto defrag with that option if not tried before together with all the options unchecked in auto defrag section when using distributed computing apps.

 

Cheers.

[RoloX2]

...except for those users who have 5-year old Best Buy hp PCs with 5 years of bloat and toolbars and anti-virus 2 years out of date and have never, ever been defragmented who think that one 10-minute visit from the PC guru can make it run like a brand new i7-3930K with 32GB RAM and four SSDs in RAID0....with three GTX680s in SLI.... :lol:

 

Those computers are slowed down by the POWER ON button.

 

hehe...back to our regular programming.

 

I'm watching it now (other PC). I don't think it's going to repeat every 10 mins but its too early to tell.

 

Edit: Yes, "Always defrag" is how I have it configured (as well ask "skip size" unchecked). My OCD wouldn't have it any other way.