My son has a laptop and he uses the built in Windows 10 defragger. Constantly says 0% defrag. I just installed and ran Piriform Defraggler. It says 9% fragged. (10 gig+) and it needs 24 hrs to defrag. I have no idea which one is correct, but is there a better one that I can depend on?
Different defragmenters use different algorithms, so when initially checking a disk, they will ALL show different states of defragmentation, some more, some less, than of the last used defragmenter.
Windows own, only defrags files that are smaller than 64MB as there is no empirical proof that defragging anything larger improves really read speeds.
With Piriform you can set the size if you wish though, but if you set it larger that than 64 it will take longer, while it then has more to move around.
Defraggler has some good options, but most are truthfully not necessary, as Windows own will also perform a defrag of files need at boot, and move them to the outside of the disk, every so often.
But if you insist on using a 3rd party one, Defraggler might be slow compared to others, but it is the best, as it uses Windows API's and copies the data to the side, before moving stuff around, in case of a power interruption, or you cancel the defrag, your data remains intact, because it uses volume shadow service, otherwise known as VSS.
Hi:
In addition to the excellent advice already provided...
..whether you use the built-in "defragmenter" for Win10 or a third-party solution, make sure that it knows the difference between a HDD and SSD.
HDDs ("spinners") can be defragmented.
SSDs should be optimized with "TRIM", not a standard defrag.
Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but the built-in Win10 utility DOES know the difference, as do most/all of the reputable, 3rd-party programs.
Cheers,
MM
I've never had a problem with Piriform's defrag over many years. Seems to do the job and shut down when it's finished.
I am using PC tuneup utilities form AVG, this one is very good and will check for disk errors multiple times.
Even with XP fragmentation under 17% was considered inconsequential. Doing one full defrag on a disk uses it as much as several month of normal use so it has an effect on drive's life.
Hi there
these days I'm not sure that ANY defrag is ever worth while -- I certainly never even found them very effective even years ago. The quickest way by FAR if you are worried about files with long chains etc is simply to IMAGE the whole HDD with something like macrium and then restore it again. Works better BY FAR , is a LOAD QUICKER (could be as fast as 30 mins for the entire image plus restore function and apart from giving you a Backup it intelligently re-creates and optimises all the files on the HDD.
I'm still amazed that in 2016 people are even THINKING about using defragging software --that type of stuff should have died the death Donkeys years ago.
Note --you need to IMAGE the HDD not CLONE or COPY it -- CLONING just copies the source sector by sector so no advantage other than you have a 100% Disk Copy which is useable without needing to restore it again.
IMAGING does an Intelligent copy --ignoring empty sectors etc and optimising the files where possible.
Cheers
jimbo
In addition to all of that, some "Fragmentation" is desirable, I put it in quotes because de-fragmenting programs think that some space is fragmented but it's actually space left for files to expand in continuity without causing further fragmentation. Data bases use that feature a lot and so may many programs that use and need expandability.
Quote
