SpeedDisk versus Win Defrag: any DVD burning effects?

Hey-

I recently purchased Norton’s Systemworks. One of the included tools is “Speed Disk”, which has a hard drive disk defragmenting / disk sorting tool.

One of the options of this tool is to move files to the end of the hard drive. Presumably, by doing this to large, infrequently accessed files, they are less likely to become fragmented by changes to other files earlier on the drive.

So, my question is this: does how files are defragmented or sorted on the hard drive have any impact on the way my DVD is able to burn these files?

I would guess that defragmented files are easier to burn than fragmented ones. The kind of strange thing is that Speed Disk and the normal Windows defragment utility seem to have very different definitions of what a fragmented file is… Speed Disk will say my drive is 1% fragmented, and Windows will say it’s 25% fragmented.

Anyhow, if anyone has noticed effects with their ND-2500A with regards to how a disk is defragmented, I’d be interested in comments.

Thanks!

Moved to appropriate forum.

The answer is that it’s purely a speed issue, a badly fragmented HD cannot deliver data fast enough to burn.

BTW, SpeedDisc is fairly dangerous, corrupted data and lost data is possible. IT also does very little for performance. Windows defrag is similarly ineffective, but safe.

A dedicated defrag tool like Diskeeper is by far the best option. It must include some kind of boot-time defrag of MFT, paging file and directories. Directory fragmentation is one of the biggest contributors to slow HD performance, and neither of those utilities do anything about it.

The defragmentation software included in Win2k and XP is a cut down version of Diskeeper, except in Germany due to the maker’s of Diskeepers ties to the Scientologists (illegal in Germany).

A full diskfragmentation software package is recommended as they will defrag things like the MFT and the pagefile (only prior to windows loading).

Perfect Disk is also very good.

Switching regularly between different defraggers is not recommended as they all have different alogirthms for aranging the files.

Regular defragmentation of NTFS partitions is highly recommended as NTFS is particularly prone to fragmentation (something to do with it being based on an old VMS file system). FAT32 is less prone to fragmentation but has the max file size issue.

windows’ built-in defragger isn’t a cut-down version of diskeeper (ie: microsoft doesn’t include some type of “diskeeper lite” with windows). diskeeper builds upon and integrates with windows’ existing defragger.

i recommend diskeeper as well for defragging.

My understanding is that blinky is right. Just as VERITAS worked with Microsoft to design the built-in backup program (and some of the low level stuff like ASR and system state backups) in Windows XP, I believe that Executive Software worked with Microsoft to design the built-in defragmenter and the low level hooks for defragmentation in Windows XP.

It’s no accident that the Windows XP backup program looks like a very old version of Backup Exec (something like Backup Exec for Windows NT Workstation), and that the defragmenter looks very like an old version of Diskeeper.

The full version of Diskeeper is highly recommended - that way, you get the timed defragmentation, as well as the ability to defragment the MFT and paging file(s).

http://www.execsoft.co.uk/html/diskeeper/dkv.htm confirms Executive’s authorship of the built in defragmenter in Windows 2000. That article is out of date, really, as it’s comparing Windows 2000’s defragmenter to Diskeeper 7.0 (the latest is 8.0).

David

from Help >> About in Disk Defragmenter in Windows XP

Windows Disk Defragmenter
Copyright © 2001 Microsoft Corp. and Executive Software International, Inc.

Executive Software make Diskeeper.