Defragmentation using MS's version and freeware others - d..

Thanks, Mike,
There is an optimum placing of files, isn't there? Is the broad plan of this
placement laid down in Windows? Do all freeware defragmenters use the (a) the
system's defragmenter and (b) the scheme for optimum placement.

What is the server address/name which I must input into O.E.? I can never
remember it. I can no longer abide this web-based? interface since I have
vision problems.
--
Ben.


"Mike M" wrote:

> > Does it matter?
>
> No, not at all.
>
> > Am I correct
> > in thinking that one should be used only (no matter which) and
> > consistently so?
>
> No although if using ScanDefrag allows you to defrag without problem and
> Defrag does not then I would suggest you stick with ScanDefrag. The tool
> uses the same defrag engine, the difference being that ScanDefrag that
> runs during bootup and therefore is less likely to be interrupted by other
> processes accessing the hard drive being defragged.
> --
> Mike Maltby
> MS-MVP Windows
> mike.maltby DeleteThis @gmail.com
>
>
> Ben B <BenB DeleteThis @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > I would like to know, and I will be specific, is it likely that the
> > re-ordering of files on the hard disk, as occurs during the defrag
> > process, will differ from one tool to another? MS Disk Defrag. and
> > ScanDefrag are the two I have in mind.
> >
> > My experience seems to suggest that these two tools do not, in fact,
> > agree on the optimum placement of files. Does it matter? Am I correct
> > in thinking that one should be used only (no matter which) and
> > consistently so?
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Defragmentation using MS's version and freeware others - d.. 

Ben B <BenB DeleteThis @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Mike,
> There is an optimum placing of files, isn't there? Is the broad plan
> of this placement laid down in Windows?

Faster booting can be achieved by placing certain system files towards the
front of the disk. In addition Microsoft's defragger optimizes the
placement of the program files used by the 50(?) most frequently used
applications so that they start quicker. It does this by reference to the
LG? files in the Windows\Applog folder which are generated by Taskmon.exe,
an application therefore best not disabled in MSConfig | Startup. The
letter replacing the ? in the extension LG? indicates the drive partition
containing the files involved.

> Do all freeware defragmenters
> use the (a) the system's defragmenter and (b) the scheme for optimum
> placement.

ScanDefrag has no defrag engine and can use one of a number of defrag
engines including those from Microsoft and Norton (spit). It's a GUI and
as I have already mentioned used to launch your chosen defrag engine
during a reboot so as to allow it to run with the minimum of interruptions
from other processes.

Different engines use different schemes. For example, in XP, I consider
PerfectDisk from Raxco to be far superior to the Microsoft engine in both
the placement of files and also the actual defragging. Incidentally the
Microsoft defrag engine in XP and I think also Win 9x/Me is based on a cut
down version of Diskeeper from the Diskeeper Corp. I have made no attempt
to compare PerfectDisk with Diskeeper. Each has its own fans.

> What is the server address/name which I must input into O.E.? I can
> never remember it. I can no longer abide this web-based? interface
> since I have vision problems.

Server: msnews.microsoft.com
No user logon, no password and NO pissport (spelling intentional)
required.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby DeleteThis @gmail.com
 >> Stay informed about: Defragmentation using MS's version and freeware others - d.. 

Hello Mike and many thanks for your explication. It is valued.

My questions were prompted by a very recent experience. An unusual
sluggishness in computer performance and an incomplete (30% hang) defrag,
together with (but not necessarily related I suppose) Panda Online hanging
also at about 70% ( no 'items' showing), together with a repetition of the
former in Safe Mode - all of which I tried several times with identical
results - plus a lack of a relevant restore point! (an aberration now
remedied!) resulted in a format/re-install. Problem solved but source not
known I began to explore the matter.

This article introduced me to the Applog f.folder and its function:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/218160/EN-US
and this one to a possible remedy (which I implemented but have now
reversed):
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdpcm/is_200303/ai_ziff37913

It is possible that the Applog was implicated in the difficulty I
experienced. But now at least I have more understanding of its function and
the part taskmon.exe plays in the scheme of things.

I still enjoy the slowish learning.

Kind regards, Mike.

Ben B

"Mike M" <No_Spam.TakeThisOut@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:uBPIzMmoHHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| Ben B <BenB.TakeThisOut@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
|
| > Thanks, Mike,
| > There is an optimum placing of files, isn't there? Is the broad plan
| > of this placement laid down in Windows?
|
| Faster booting can be achieved by placing certain system files towards the
| front of the disk. In addition Microsoft's defragger optimizes the
| placement of the program files used by the 50(?) most frequently used
| applications so that they start quicker. It does this by reference to the
| LG? files in the Windows\Applog folder which are generated by Taskmon.exe,
| an application therefore best not disabled in MSConfig | Startup. The
| letter replacing the ? in the extension LG? indicates the drive partition
| containing the files involved.
|
| > Do all freeware defragmenters
| > use the (a) the system's defragmenter and (b) the scheme for optimum
| > placement.
|
| ScanDefrag has no defrag engine and can use one of a number of defrag
| engines including those from Microsoft and Norton (spit). It's a GUI and
| as I have already mentioned used to launch your chosen defrag engine
| during a reboot so as to allow it to run with the minimum of interruptions
| from other processes.
|
| Different engines use different schemes. For example, in XP, I consider
| PerfectDisk from Raxco to be far superior to the Microsoft engine in both
| the placement of files and also the actual defragging. Incidentally the
| Microsoft defrag engine in XP and I think also Win 9x/Me is based on a cut
| down version of Diskeeper from the Diskeeper Corp. I have made no attempt
| to compare PerfectDisk with Diskeeper. Each has its own fans.
|
| > What is the server address/name which I must input into O.E.? I can
| > never remember it. I can no longer abide this web-based? interface
| > since I have vision problems.
|
| Server: msnews.microsoft.com
| No user logon, no password and NO pissport (spelling intentional)
| required.
| --
| Mike Maltby
| mike.maltby.TakeThisOut@gmail.com
|
|
 >> Stay informed about: Defragmentation using MS's version and freeware others - d.. 

Ben,

Sorry about the delayed reply. My main PC is currently dead whilst I'm
waiting for a new chipset fan and I am posting from a machine that is
normally used for video work and doesn't (or didn't) have mail or news
configured.

I wasn't aware that you were having problems/hanging when defragging, or at
least I don't recall seeing you mentioning this as being a problem. As for
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdpcm/is_200303/ai_ziff37913 I think
you are well advised to ignore that "advice" especially given the spurious
comment about the space taken up by the applog files which is minimal on all
but the smallest of hard drives..
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby DeleteThis @gmail.com


"Ben B" <notiisit DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:en8OP$toHHA.4412@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hello Mike and many thanks for your explication. It is valued.
>
> My questions were prompted by a very recent experience. An unusual
> sluggishness in computer performance and an incomplete (30% hang) defrag,
> together with (but not necessarily related I suppose) Panda Online
> hanging
> also at about 70% ( no 'items' showing), together with a repetition of the
> former in Safe Mode - all of which I tried several times with identical
> results - plus a lack of a relevant restore point! (an aberration now
> remedied!) resulted in a format/re-install. Problem solved but source not
> known I began to explore the matter.
>
> This article introduced me to the Applog f.folder and its function:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/218160/EN-US
> and this one to a possible remedy (which I implemented but have now
> reversed):
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdpcm/is_200303/ai_ziff37913
>
> It is possible that the Applog was implicated in the difficulty I
> experienced. But now at least I have more understanding of its function
> and
> the part taskmon.exe plays in the scheme of things.
>
> I still enjoy the slowish learning.
 >> Stay informed about: Defragmentation using MS's version and freeware others - d.. 

Mike,

I hadn't posted about the problem, But I remain very puzzled about it simply
because I had never experienced anything close to it before. Although I
stated in my original post the hang occurred at 30% it was actually 1 or 2%
either side of 30. But it became predictable. And to have the Panda Online
Scan hang when it got among the system files (this happened on the three
occasions I used it) was doubly confusing.

I do keep a 'clean' machine and run ScanDefrag before day's end. During the
course of my attempts to resolve the issue I had run my Western Digital disk
tool which found no problems during its extensive scan.

I'm left with the file/folder corruption and chose to believe the Applog
f.folder was the culprit merely because the MS Article suggested it (this
after the fact - after the F/I). Would such corruption account for the
slight sluggishness which prompted the initial defragmentation? And would
(had I done it) running scandisk in/from DOS mode have cleared the
corruption? This is the step I didn't take.

Your further thoughts appreciated, Mike.

Ben.



"Mike M" <No_Spam.DeleteThis@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:%23riX%23g7oHHA.588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| Ben,


| I wasn't aware that you were having problems/hanging when defragging, or
at
| least I don't recall seeing you mentioning this as being a problem. As
for
| http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdpcm/is_200303/ai_ziff37913 I think
| you are well advised to ignore that "advice" especially given the spurious
| comment about the space taken up by the applog files which is minimal on
all
| but the smallest of hard drives..
| --
| Mike Maltby
| mike.maltby.DeleteThis@gmail.com
|
|
| "Ben B" <notiisit.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:en8OP$toHHA.4412@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| > Hello Mike and many thanks for your explication. It is valued.
| >
| > My questions were prompted by a very recent experience. An unusual
| > sluggishness in computer performance and an incomplete (30% hang)
defrag,
| > together with (but not necessarily related I suppose) Panda Online
| > hanging
| > also at about 70% ( no 'items' showing), together with a repetition of
the
| > former in Safe Mode - all of which I tried several times with identical
| > results - plus a lack of a relevant restore point! (an aberration now
| > remedied!) resulted in a format/re-install. Problem solved but source
not
| > known I began to explore the matter.
| >
| > This article introduced me to the Applog f.folder and its function:
| > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/218160/EN-US
| > and this one to a possible remedy (which I implemented but have now
| > reversed):
| > http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdpcm/is_200303/ai_ziff37913
| >
| > It is possible that the Applog was implicated in the difficulty I
| > experienced. But now at least I have more understanding of its function
| > and
| > the part taskmon.exe plays in the scheme of things.
 >> Stay informed about: Defragmentation using MS's version and freeware others - d.. 

On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:04:00 -0700, Ben B

>I would like to know, and I will be specific, is it likely that the
>re-ordering of files on the hard disk, as occurs during the defrag process,
>will differ from one tool to another?

Yes - or with the same tool, if different options are applied.

However...

>MS Disk Defrag. and ScanDefrag

...are likely to work the same way, because (as I understand it)
ScanDefrag is just a wrapper for the same MS defrag.

Up until Win98, the defrag logic was pretty simple:
- files split into multiple scattered pieces are Bad
- all files should be close to the start of the volume

With Win98, a new logic (credited to Intel) was added:
- commonly-used code should come first
- if that breaks up large files with only parts commonly used, OK

A tool that applies the first logic, will consider a volume
"defragged" using the second logic to be badly fragmented. This issue
caused a lot of "defrag wars", i.e. very slow and protracted
defragging sessions, when uses would alternate between logics, e.g.
use a pre-98-logic version of Norton Speed Disk one day, and Win98's
native defragger the next. In addition, you could disable Win98's new
defrag logic and have it operate like the old days.

That issue is most likely to cause significant differences, but
there's more "detail" too. In the DOS era, some tools let you select
and order "favorite" directories to be moved to the front of the
volume, while other options were to place all dirs before files, order
directory entries in different ways, only strive to defrag free space.
etc. There's a school of thought that leaving some "loose" space for
temp work is a good idea, else you force heads to travcel from FAT and
first-installed OS code to the other end of the file mass to create
temp files or grow swap space and registry hives.

The other issue that is particular to the new logic, is on what basis
files (or parts thereof) will be considered to be "commonly used".
This is normally derived from usage information that is gathered by an
underfootware process (i.e. is active all the time, not just when
defragging). Win98's defragger stores this in AppLog; other
defraggers may use this or run their own usage tracking service.

>My experience seems to suggest that these two tools do not, in fact, agree
>on the optimum placement of files. Does it matter? Am I correct in thinking
>that one should be used only (no matter which) and consistently so?

It may not matter much - if anything, ScanDefrag would prolly be the
one to "believe". Differences may also arise with the same tool, as
the AppLog data changes with time.

For example, you defrag, install MS Office, and defrag again. At this
point. none of the MS Office code has been run, so it's not in the
AppLog, and doesn't get special treatment; most likely it will be
"optimized" as non-fragmented files on the far side of the file mass,
just before an (ideally?) unbroken strech of free space.

Then you defrag again, a day after heavy use of MS Office. If some
parts of some files have been tracked as often used, then these
fragments will be located nearer the front of the volume for speed.


What ScanDefrag does, is ensure there's as few files locked by being
"in use" as possible, so that they can be moved by defrag, and so that
writes to the file system do not restart either Scandisk or Defrag
from the beginning again (the main problem it was designed to fix).

The problem arises because (quite properly) neither Scandisk nor
Defrag will continue if the file system contents have been changed,
for fear of corrupting data. I know that XP doesn't seem to have this
problem, presumably because it uses a finer-grained way to tell
whether a file system write will invalidate the programs' assumptions.



>------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
I'm on a ten-year lunch break
>------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
 >> Stay informed about: Defragmentation using MS's version and freeware others - d.. 

Hello Chris,

I appreciate your input (as always has been the case) and think I have
probably learned a little more about something (defragmentation) which has
always been something of a puzzlement although understood to be a worthwhile
routine.

I have used ScanDefrag from the time it was created, as part of a routine,
but occasionally have reverted to the System Tools version in between
routines (and noticed some difference). I have five drives on two disks but
ScanDefrag makes light work of the re-ordering.

I am now paying daily attention to the applog and its growth (a minimal
consideration - in terms of space used) but reflective of my usage - or so I
sense.

Thanks for taking the trouble to post in depth, Chris.

Best wishes.

Ben.

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews.TakeThisOut@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:0r6o739fgaeb6thr6tn7uuqs6vg153q6nk@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:04:00 -0700, Ben B
|
| >I would like to know, and I will be specific, is it likely that the
| >re-ordering of files on the hard disk, as occurs during the defrag
process,
| >will differ from one tool to another?
|
| Yes - or with the same tool, if different options are applied.
|
| However...
|
| >MS Disk Defrag. and ScanDefrag
|
| ..are likely to work the same way, because (as I understand it)
| ScanDefrag is just a wrapper for the same MS defrag.
|
| Up until Win98, the defrag logic was pretty simple:
| - files split into multiple scattered pieces are Bad
| - all files should be close to the start of the volume
|
| With Win98, a new logic (credited to Intel) was added:
| - commonly-used code should come first
| - if that breaks up large files with only parts commonly used, OK
|
| A tool that applies the first logic, will consider a volume
| "defragged" using the second logic to be badly fragmented. This issue
| caused a lot of "defrag wars", i.e. very slow and protracted
| defragging sessions, when uses would alternate between logics, e.g.
| use a pre-98-logic version of Norton Speed Disk one day, and Win98's
| native defragger the next. In addition, you could disable Win98's new
| defrag logic and have it operate like the old days.
|
| That issue is most likely to cause significant differences, but
| there's more "detail" too. In the DOS era, some tools let you select
| and order "favorite" directories to be moved to the front of the
| volume, while other options were to place all dirs before files, order
| directory entries in different ways, only strive to defrag free space.
| etc. There's a school of thought that leaving some "loose" space for
| temp work is a good idea, else you force heads to travcel from FAT and
| first-installed OS code to the other end of the file mass to create
| temp files or grow swap space and registry hives.
|
| The other issue that is particular to the new logic, is on what basis
| files (or parts thereof) will be considered to be "commonly used".
| This is normally derived from usage information that is gathered by an
| underfootware process (i.e. is active all the time, not just when
| defragging). Win98's defragger stores this in AppLog; other
| defraggers may use this or run their own usage tracking service.
|
| >My experience seems to suggest that these two tools do not, in fact,
agree
| >on the optimum placement of files. Does it matter? Am I correct in
thinking
| >that one should be used only (no matter which) and consistently so?
|
| It may not matter much - if anything, ScanDefrag would prolly be the
| one to "believe". Differences may also arise with the same tool, as
| the AppLog data changes with time.
|
| For example, you defrag, install MS Office, and defrag again. At this
| point. none of the MS Office code has been run, so it's not in the
| AppLog, and doesn't get special treatment; most likely it will be
| "optimized" as non-fragmented files on the far side of the file mass,
| just before an (ideally?) unbroken strech of free space.
|
| Then you defrag again, a day after heavy use of MS Office. If some
| parts of some files have been tracked as often used, then these
| fragments will be located nearer the front of the volume for speed.
|
|
| What ScanDefrag does, is ensure there's as few files locked by being
| "in use" as possible, so that they can be moved by defrag, and so that
| writes to the file system do not restart either Scandisk or Defrag
| from the beginning again (the main problem it was designed to fix).
|
| The problem arises because (quite properly) neither Scandisk nor
| Defrag will continue if the file system contents have been changed,
| for fear of corrupting data. I know that XP doesn't seem to have this
| problem, presumably because it uses a finer-grained way to tell
| whether a file system write will invalidate the programs' assumptions.
|
|
|
| >------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
| I'm on a ten-year lunch break
| >------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
 >> Stay informed about: Defragmentation using MS's version and freeware others - d..