IObit Smartdefrag 1.10: how determines frequently used files?

[ektorbarajas]

Hi. I've being reading several post to find an answer, and either of the two happened:

 

1) this topic has not being explained at glance

2) I was very dumb and was not able to find the info :lol:

 

so here are my questions:

 

Smartdefrag, defrags according to the frequency the files are used. ok

 

1) which parameter uses smartdefrag to determine that?

NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate ? if it's =0 then the last acess is recorded onthe files, if it's =1 then it's disabled

or uses another parameter?

 

2) in case it uses the NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate, then I assume that for this to REALLY work the value of this registry entry must be = 0, right?

 

My point is that I'd like to take out the MOST of smartdefarg, and the idea of optimizing according to the frequency a file is used hears pretty good.

 

I'd appreciate the clarification of this topic, since I'm aware several users would like to optimize their HDD a bit more.

 

Regards

[enoskype]

Hi ektorbarajas,

 

Where have you been?

 

The answer to your question 2) is YES, at least for the sake of the other defragmenters using that.

 

Now you are going to ask, why then System Optimization sees it as a problem? And , if you don't put into the Ignore List, it is going to be repaired and the value will be set to "1".

 

I think it is not that way anymore.

I have taken it out of the Ignore List and it doesn't appear as a problem any more and the value is set to "0" for Everyday use DSL anyway.

 

I have never learned the answer!!!

 

Cheers.

[ektorbarajas]

Hi there enoskype !! thanks for your promptly reply.

 

I'll set the NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate = 0 and see if as time passes there is any additional improvement. specially cuz I'm a bit (just a bit :lol:) confused since several tweaker programs put that value = 1, claiming that it will speed the thing a bit up. so I will see how smartdefrag deals with this.

 

In case I notice a performance improvement (even if it's small) then as a conclusion it's worth to have NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate=0 since smart defrag optimizes a bit more the HDD. And in case there is no improvement or even a bit downgrade in the performance then the conclusion will be that it's better to be NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate=1.

 

Also I was wondering if the result test posted on iobit's web site, comparing different defraggers is with the NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate=0 or =1. any idea?

 

Regards