SD Version-2, Changes & Improvements ?

[enoskype]

Hi ANURAAG,

 

You might not be using it, but the tray icon is there for opening the main window of the program, exiting the program and since animated when defrag is going on, it is easy to see that the files in the disk is beeing defragmented.

It gives you the opportunity to stop the defrag if you want to shut Windows down.

 

For Layout.ini, there are many users that do not want Layout.ini to arrange the files, (not always the optimum solution for boot speed.) so it can be only an option.

 

Well, for users like you, there could be options to hide the sytam tray icon of SD and obeying Layout.ini.

 

Cheers.

[LaurenceJ]

Hi enoskype,

 

When shutting down Windows, does not Windows send out a close/exit command to a program which is still running, and if the program does not willingly respond and close gracefully, then it is forced to close? (Or some such thing.)

 

And if so, then if someone does not first stop and exit SD, should not Windows step in and do its thing before it shuts down?

 

Laurence

[ANURAAG]

Hi ANURAAG,

Well, for users like you, there could be options to hide the sytam tray icon of SD and obeying Layout.ini.

 

Cheers.

 

layout.ini is not necessary but hide tray icon is necessary for me.

[Toppack]

hide tray icon is necessary for me.

 

Thanks for the Info about layout.ini file. Very Interesting :!:

I can see why using it could be good for some users.

 

Sorry, I still can't figure out Any good reason that Icon would Need to be Hidden and It's very Useful when it's displayed in tray :?:

Even if the tray was completely Full of other Icons, it could be accessed if needed.

Icons are an Important part and a useful Tool in any Operating-system. :wink:

That would be like me trying to fix my Hotrod without any hand Tools within reach, with all of them put away in the tool box. :lol:

[Toppack]

I really like the active Graphs on the 'automatic defrag' page.:grin:

(the new Date graph can be Useful)

 

But I'm curious if the CPU persentage of usage graph Averages core usage for Multi-core processors or does it only display one of the processor-cores :?:

 

(also the height of persentage indicators don't increase proportionally to height of overall graph, when it's changed with window-size feature)

 

I understand that these graphs are Not supposed to be accurate persentage meters, (for referance comparison only), but I'm trying to get a better idea of what I'm looking at and how reliable they are.

[ANURAAG]

Can anyone tell me what defrag method does smartdefrag 2 use.

I tried sd 2 and run full optimize.

Not all recently used files moved to starting of disk and disk is not consolidated.

[solbjerg]

Hi Anuraag

If you used the Full Optimize it tried to place the most used and most recently used data at the outer rim generally.

How did you determine that not all recently used files were not consolidated?

If it was some of the squares that still looked as if they hadn't been moved - it was probably because they couldn't be tampered with because they were in use during your defrag.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

Can anyone tell me what defrag method does smartdefrag 2 use.

I tried sd 2 and run full optimize.

Not all recently used files moved to starting of disk and disk is not consolidated.

[ANURAAG]

+ Added backup and rarely used files compressing

 

please explain.

[solbjerg]

Hi Anuraag

I can't yet explain that.

I suppose that when we get the language file, we will understand it a little better.

For now my guess is that "compressing" is a turn of phrase that means that the rarely used files will be placed ultimately defragged at the inner rim and therefore not as easily be fragmented again - but it is just a guess!!

As for backup - I really don't understand that, unless it means that a Windows System backup will be created - this is also just a guess!

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

please explain.

[Toppack]

+ Added backup and rarely used files compressing

 

Windows Back-Up files are Compressed type files.

 

But I think what that is referring to is Location placement of certain types of files on the H-drive platters (disk).

If rarely used files are placed on the part of platters that require more time for the read/write Heads to get to them, the efficiency improves since it takes less time to get to the most often used data and files, and Compacting of those rarely used files, with no gaps in data, improves efficiency also. (Compacting, Not Compressing, which have different meanings)

 

On Small Modern drives those are Not as big a problem as it was on older Large diameter drive platters, but each Micro-second used can Add up to a noticeable delay when the drive is being accessed many times per second.

On the new Hybrid and Solid-state drives that's Not a concern or problem at all,

and for New, Fast, and Small Magnetic-drives it's Not much of a concern Either (at least Not to Me).

[enoskype]

+ Added backup and rarely used files compressing

Hi guys,

 

My interpretation of that sentence is:

 

Ability of SD Beta 1.1 to defragment backup files (compressed) and compressed rarely used files. (Windows XP can automatically compress (shrink) files not used more than xx days ago, or which can be done manually at any time).

Certainly this compression is not compressing a file/folder to a .zip, .rar, etc. format.

 

Cheers.

[Toppack]

Hi guys,

 

My interpretation of that sentence is:

 

Ability of SD Beta 1.1 to defragment backup files (compressed)

 

Oh, is that what it Means:!:

That's what I've been Waiting for. :grin:

But, Now I'm Afraid to try it on my Back-up drive,

after the problem it caused when I tried it before. :roll:

 

Maybe I can do another back-up, on another drive, to test it first,

if you are Sure that's what it means? :wink:

 

I suppose I could use a flash-drive to do that?

[enoskype]

Well, I can not be sure, but Smart defrag should not be backing up files, and certainly shouldn't compress already compressed backup files. :roll:

 

Compressing rarely used files?:?: I doubt it, and it should take quite a bit of time to do that on top of defragmenting and why should it do that if Windows is already doing it during clean up?:wink:

 

Good hunting for the trial though.8:)

 

I thought that IObit did it for you.:lol:

 

Cheers.

[enoskype]

EDiT

 

Well, I can not be sure, but Smart defrag should not be backing up files, and certainly shouldn't compress already compressed backup files. :roll:

 

How could I be so wrong!:-P

 

The defragmenter says that it is compressing backup files and rarely used files.... :roll:

 

So the rest should be all wrong also.:cry: Negative logic.

 

Sorry for the wrong interpretation. I shouldn't do that before testing the new version.

 

Cheers.

[Toppack]

I put about 14.GB of Back-up files on a flash-drive.

After doing an Analyze, I did the recommended 'defrag and fast-optimize',

with No problems. :grin:

So you may be correct.

It appears that SD may be just bypassing the back-ups, with no action, even tho it reports that it is defraging them.

 

I'll test more tomorrow by copying normal files to that drive along with backup, and see what happens.

[Toppack]

I'm Confused Again!

After copying about 2.GB of graphics files (with the Back-up files on flash-drive), and then deleting some of them so there would be gaps in the data.

SD beta-v1.1 reported that All the files were 'Unmovable', including the copied files.

 

Shouldn't SD have found Something that was defragmentable or at Least Not Unmovable :?:

It appears that if it sees Unmovable Back-up files, SD considers everything on the drive to be Unmovable ?

 

The Good thing is that SD did Not trash the Back-up files. :-D

[Toppack]

Yep, I tried it again and got same results.

Everything is Unmovable.:roll:

Looks like a Problem:!:

[Toppack]

After copying about 2.GB of graphics files (with the Back-up files on flash-drive), and then deleting some of them so there would be gaps in the data.

SD beta-v1.1 reported that All the files were 'Unmovable', including the copied files.

 

Shouldn't SD have found Something that was defragmentable or at Least Not Unmovable :?:

It appears that if it sees Unmovable Back-up files, SD considers everything on the drive to be Unmovable ?

 

I'm curious if SD programmers have been made Aware and are Addressing this apparent Problem in 2-beta v1.1 ?

If having Back-up files on a drive is actually making All files on that drive Unmovable, then SD can Not do what it is supposed to be doing.

[DisabledNotDead]

sd v2beta1.1 showing various amounts of file fragmentation

 

V2 beta 1.1 shows 213,631 total files and Dirs with

26 FRAGMENTS on REPORT TAB,

and

726 FRAGMENTS on the STATUS TABAny idea which one is telling the "truth" and why the differences in V2 beta 1.1's TABS?

 

[ATTACH]6585[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]6586[/ATTACH]

 

System Information Report.txt

[DisabledNotDead]

More info on different defrag file quantities

 

V2 beta 1.1 shows 213,631 total files and Dirs with

26 FRAGMENTS on REPORT TAB,

and

726 FRAGMENTS on the STATUS TABAny idea which one is telling the "truth" and why the differences in V2 beta 1.1's TABS?

 

[ATTACH]6585[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]6586[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]6587[/ATTACH]

 

at first I thought that the "fragmented files" variable was picking up an invalid previous character 726/26 in the hundreds position, as the graphical display does not show very many fragments, but oops forgot to mention that Server 2010 also reported 197 files fragmented and V1.5 reported 138

 

any comments? I certainly have some concerns that the same program has two different results posted and why 3 different version of the same companies software would vary so greatly (mostly within the same version, even if it is a BETA version)

[solbjerg]

Hi Disabled

The first picture shows some fragmented files and the other part of it shows the number of fragments in those files.

The second picture shows how many fragments in each file.

Additionally you have not informed us about which settings you use - for example do you use the deep scan in the scan that yields 726?

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

at first I thought that the "fragmented files" variable was picking up an invalid previous character 726/26 in the hundreds position, as the graphical display does not show very many fragments, but oops forgot to mention that Server 2010 also reported 197 files fragmented and V1.5 reported 138

 

any comments? I certainly have some concerns that the same program has two different results posted and why 3 different version of the same companies software would vary so greatly (mostly within the same version, even if it is a BETA version)

[Toppack]

Very Interesting, that there is that Much Difference :?:

 

Without knowing exactly how those numbers are calculated, I doubt we will know for sure why that is.

And from what I've seen on this website before, I think getting that sort of Info will be more difficult than Pulling-Teeth. :wink:

 

Personally, as long as it appears to be defraging at least part of the fragmented data I'm Happy, tho. :-D

[Toppack]

And I can Understand why they would Not want to Reveal any programming Secrets, to the general Public. :wink:

 

We can only hope that the Later versions are More Accurate. :-)

[DisabledNotDead]

Hi Disabled

The first picture shows some fragmented files and the other part of it shows the number of fragments in those files.

The second picture shows how many fragments in each file.

Additionally you have not informed us about which settings you use - for example do you use the deep scan in the scan that yields 726?

Cheers

solbjerg

 

SD server was run DEFRAG ONLY = 197 FILES (trial does not allow FAST OPTIMIZE) YET IT FOUND MORE THAN V2 & v1.5

SD V2 B1.1 was run DEFRAG/FAST OPTIMIZE = 726FRAGMENTS/26FILES

SD v1.5 was run DEFRAG/FAST OPTIMIZE = and it had a different amount (138 if i recall correctly)

more than SD v2 b1.1's 26 FILES

and less than SD Servers 197

 

I would of hoped that V2 would of found the same if NOT MORE than v1.5 which tells me that v2 is not checking something that v1.5 is.

[solbjerg]

Hi DisabledNotDead

In what sequence did you run the defrags? Did you run them just after each other? Did you have anything else running while defragging?

It would be good if you clarify if you are talking files or fragments in all instances.

As I understand what you are saying you had 197 files in the first defrag - how many fragments?

 

26 files in the second defrag + 726 fragments

and you then recall 138 ?? what? files or fragments in the third defrag, Right?

Fragments most probably! Those fragments could come from some few files.

How much free space do you have on the defragged drive? In percentage please!

Cheers

solbjerg

 

SD server was run DEFRAG ONLY = 197 FILES (trial does not allow FAST OPTIMIZE) YET IT FOUND MORE THAN V2 & v1.5

SD V2 B1.1 was run DEFRAG/FAST OPTIMIZE = 726FRAGMENTS/26FILES

SD v1.5 was run DEFRAG/FAST OPTIMIZE = and it had a different amount (138 if i recall correctly)

more than SD v2 b1.1's 26 FILES

and less than SD Servers 197

 

I would of hoped that V2 would of found the same if NOT MORE than v1.5 which tells me that v2 is not checking something that v1.5 is.