Do defraggers do a CHKDSK first?

Does a defragger, such as PerfectDisk, perform the equivalent of a
CHKDSK before defragging?

If not, then should I be running CHKDSK before every defrag?

Don wrote:
Does a defragger, such as PerfectDisk, perform the equivalent of a
CHKDSK before defragging?

If not, then should I be running CHKDSK before every defrag?

Actually, you should run a backup before defragging. Although
the process has become more reliable.

Arno

On 8 Mar 2009 17:43:09 GMT, Arno wrote:

Don wrote:
Does a defragger, such as PerfectDisk, perform the equivalent of a
CHKDSK before defragging?

If not, then should I be running CHKDSK before every defrag?

Actually, you should run a backup before defragging. Although
the process has become more reliable.

I'm looking for a defragger which works the way the old Norton
Utilities defragger did. The old NU program also MOVED directories
and files so that there was no free space at one end of the disk. This
gave you one very large free space, minimizing the change for new and
changed files to themselves be defragged. Why can't Diskeeper do
that? I know they could, they just seem to imply it's not necessary.
Do they think we are that stupid?


-AH

Andrew Hamilton wrote:
I'm looking for a defragger which works the way the old Norton
Utilities defragger did. The old NU program also MOVED directories
and files so that there was no free space at one end of the disk. This
gave you one very large free space, minimizing the change for new and
changed files to themselves be defragged. Why can't Diskeeper do
that? I know they could, they just seem to imply it's not necessary.
Do they think we are that stupid?

I think it has become impractical in this day and age to move such large
amounts of data around on the disk. That might have been practical in
the old days, but nowadays with 100GB disks being considered small, it
would take days to defrag a single disk in that manner anymore.

Yousuf Khan

Andrew Hamilton wrote:
On 8 Mar 2009 17:43:09 GMT, Arno wrote:

Don wrote:
Does a defragger, such as PerfectDisk, perform the equivalent of a
CHKDSK before defragging?

If not, then should I be running CHKDSK before every defrag?

Actually, you should run a backup before defragging. Although
the process has become more reliable.

I'm looking for a defragger which works the way the old Norton
Utilities defragger did. The old NU program also MOVED directories
and files so that there was no free space at one end of the disk. This
gave you one very large free space, minimizing the change for new and
changed files to themselves be defragged. Why can't Diskeeper do
that? I know they could, they just seem to imply it's not necessary.
Do they think we are that stupid?

I think you are right in the mark with that last statement.
I also think that most computer users would not even understand
what you are talking about.

So, they thing "we" are stupid, and I fear they are right.

Arno

"Andrew Hamilton" wrote in message
...
On 8 Mar 2009 17:43:09 GMT, Arno wrote:

Don wrote:
Does a defragger, such as PerfectDisk, perform the equivalent of a
CHKDSK before defragging?

If not, then should I be running CHKDSK before every defrag?

Actually, you should run a backup before defragging. Although
the process has become more reliable.

I'm looking for a defragger which works the way the old Norton
Utilities defragger did. The old NU program also MOVED directories
and files so that there was no free space at one end of the disk. This
gave you one very large free space, minimizing the change for new and
changed files to themselves be defragged. Why can't Diskeeper do
that? I know they could, they just seem to imply it's not necessary.
Do they think we are that stupid?


-AH

The defragger in Norton Systemworks for Win9x moved all white,
(free), space to the end of the disk, but had the option of placing
white space between files. The reason for this was to allow some
space for files to expand without fragmenting. The defragmenter
in Win9x was by IBM, and moved all free space to the end of the
disk. It also tended to place files by size, with smaller files at the
beginning of the disk.

The defragmenter in DOS 6.x, which was from Norton, was large
filename aware, and could be used with Win9x, in a FAT partition.
It was very fast compared to the default Win9x IBM defragmenter.
I used it for Win98 until I started using FAT32.

It is one option in "jkdefrag gui": "Analyze, defragment, and move to
end of disk.

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Ed Light wrote:
It is one option in "jkdefrag gui": "Analyze, defragment, and move to
end of disk.

I guess you know, though, that it will be in the slow area.

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

In message Andrew Hamilton
was claimed to have wrote:

On 8 Mar 2009 17:43:09 GMT, Arno wrote:

Don wrote:
Does a defragger, such as PerfectDisk, perform the equivalent of a
CHKDSK before defragging?

If not, then should I be running CHKDSK before every defrag?

Actually, you should run a backup before defragging. Although
the process has become more reliable.

I'm looking for a defragger which works the way the old Norton
Utilities defragger did. The old NU program also MOVED directories
and files so that there was no free space at one end of the disk. This
gave you one very large free space, minimizing the change for new and
changed files to themselves be defragged. Why can't Diskeeper do
that? I know they could, they just seem to imply it's not necessary.
Do they think we are that stupid?

With a modern filesystem you're actually better off with interspersed
free space, ensuring that when you append to existing files the fragment
created is physically close to the existing file.

This also allows newly created files to be placed near the existing
content within the directory.

The only case where you don't want interspersed free space is when the
drive is exceedingly close to being full, in which case you can't
effectively defragment anyway so the point is relatively moot.