> In general, do disk defragmenters for Windows XP perform a file
> system integrity check (like XP's CHKDSK) before they start moving
> data around?
>
> I'm thinking of defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk as well as
> XP's own defragger.
If there is a problem then their response is generally undefined.
There are a whole range of disk data integrity problems.
Some defraggers produce an error code for some problems
and will not try to defragment the drive.
At that point you fall back on MS$ product to see if it
can repair, or repair after a restart, which assumes that
the system will boot after the restart.
If it is a failing drive then you may be digging a bigger hole,
try to image, if that fails it may be a one shot
attempt to copy as much as you can. You try to
copy blocks of files, such as one folder at a time,
get an error unable to copy abc.xyz, delete the file
then carry on.
Of course for this you have to have a drive to copy to.
An eSATA or USB does not need a reboot, which may
save the day.
If the system drive is failing then you may not get
that far.
NTFS seems to be more robust than FAT and I've only
had a few data integrity problems, usually the drive
goes **** up without prior warning.
At which point you reach for your True Image (or
whichever you use) recovery disk and think about a
replacement drive.
You can of course create a file integrity problem
on a perfectly good drive, such as a dual boot attempt
going pearshaped, and you get the no system
message. Use image restore and have another go.
With tried and tested backups you are pretty fireproof,
and restore takes minutes. Rebuilding the system
and reinstalling all your software can take days,
and of course you have lost a lot of work, emails,
and vital stuff on the dead drive.
There are a few utilities that can seek to recover
seemingly lost or corrupt data.
"Ato_Zee" <ato_zee@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:%XIym.4530$xd4.3829@newsfe30.ams2...
>
>> In general, do disk defragmenters for Windows XP perform a file
>> system integrity check (like XP's CHKDSK) before they start moving
>> data around?
>>
>> I'm thinking of defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk as well as
>> XP's own defragger.
>
> If there is a problem then their response is generally undefined.
> There are a whole range of disk data integrity problems.
> Some defraggers produce an error code for some problems
> and will not try to defragment the drive.
> At that point you fall back on MS$ product to see if it
> can repair, or repair after a restart, which assumes that
> the system will boot after the restart.
> If it is a failing drive then you may be digging a bigger hole,
> try to image, if that fails it may be a one shot
> attempt to copy as much as you can. You try to
> copy blocks of files, such as one folder at a time,
> get an error unable to copy abc.xyz, delete the file
> then carry on.
> Of course for this you have to have a drive to copy to.
> An eSATA or USB does not need a reboot, which may
> save the day.
> If the system drive is failing then you may not get
> that far.
> NTFS seems to be more robust than FAT and I've only
> had a few data integrity problems, usually the drive
> goes **** up without prior warning.
> At which point you reach for your True Image (or
> whichever you use) recovery disk and think about a
> replacement drive.
> You can of course create a file integrity problem
> on a perfectly good drive, such as a dual boot attempt
> going pearshaped, and you get the no system
> message. Use image restore and have another go.
> With tried and tested backups you are pretty fireproof,
> and restore takes minutes. Rebuilding the system
> and reinstalling all your software can take days,
> and of course you have lost a lot of work, emails,
> and vital stuff on the dead drive.
> There are a few utilities that can seek to recover
> seemingly lost or corrupt data.
He only asked if defraggers checked a volume prior to moving data. So,
yes/no will do.
"alfo" <alfo@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C9C913F9263DD4AM2@newsfarm.ams2.highwinds-media.com...
> In general, do disk defragmenters for Windows XP perform a file
> system integrity check (like XP's CHKDSK) before they start moving
> data around?
>
> I'm thinking of defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk as well as
> XP's own defragger.
Any defrag tools I have used since DOS 3.2 do a file system integrity
check, then give an error and stop the defrag if there's a problem.
The current one's I use are Diskeeper, and the XP and Vista
defragmenters. The error messages aren't very explicit, but a
chkdsk /f usually fixes any reported errors.
In general, do disk defragmenters for Windows XP perform a file
system integrity check (like XP's CHKDSK) before they start moving
data around?
I'm thinking of defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk as well as
XP's own defragger.
Yes, I believe they do. AFAIK, the windows defrag API developed jointly by Diskeeper (excellent defragger BTW) and Microsoft has provisions for checking the dirty bit on the volume before initiating a defrag. All defraggers that use the API will utilize that. That's why some users get a "Cannot defrag, chkdsk is scheduled to run etc" message when they attempt to defrag a dirty file system. The defraggers themselves don't run any chkdsk scans by default AFAIK, they just check the bit, though some may have the option to do a full chkdsk before each defrag.
On 6-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available@request.nl> wrote:
> He only asked if defraggers checked a volume prior to moving data. So,
> yes/no will do.
OP generalised, there are many defraggers, I pointed out that
there is no consistency, either within any one of them, it
depends on the type of data integrety error, or between
how different defraggers handle the problem.
One I met compounded the problem, by seemingly
duplicating, without resolving, the corruption first.
There is no black and white, yes/no answer.
No defragger can cope with loss of data integrity on
a failing drive.
Defragging if of questionable value and the MS$ utility
does a fair job. Smart placement is just bells and
whistles.
Better to spend your money on backup than
defragging.
"Ato_Zee" <ato_zee@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:jVLym.13167$c%7.9371@newsfe11.ams2...
>
> On 6-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available@request.nl> wrote:
>
>> He only asked if defraggers checked a volume prior to moving data. So,
>> yes/no will do.
>
> OP generalised, there are many defraggers, I pointed out that
> there is no consistency, either within any one of them, it
> depends on the type of data integrety error, or between
> how different defraggers handle the problem.
He didn't ask for defraggers to fix things.
> One I met compounded the problem, by seemingly
> duplicating, without resolving, the corruption first.
> There is no black and white, yes/no answer.
Well, some do/ some don't CHECK.
> No defragger can cope with loss of data integrity on
> a failing drive.
No, that wasn't the question.
> Defragging if of questionable value and the MS$ utility
> does a fair job.
No it isn't
Smart placement is just bells and
> whistles.
No it isn't
> Better to spend your money on backup than
> defragging.
On 7-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available@request.nl> wrote:
> >> He only asked if defraggers checked a volume prior to moving data. So,
> >> yes/no will do.
You can only say yes or no for a specific defragger, but not
for defraggers as a generalisation.
> He didn't ask for defraggers to fix things.
If OP is not interested in fixing things the query has no
meaning. Concern about checking the volume implies
concern about data integrity.
> Well, some do/ some don't CHECK.
As I said there is no yes/no answer.
> > No defragger can cope with loss of data integrity on
> > a failing drive.
>
> No, that wasn't the question.
So you are suggesting that we say that all defraggers
check the volume for integrity before defragging.
Commit yourself to yes or no, since you are so
concerned with an absolute definitive answer.
> > Defragging if of questionable value and the MS$ utility
> > does a fair job.
>
> No it isn't
Oh do tell us why
> Smart placement is just bells and
> > whistles.
>
> No it isn't
So tell us how smart placement makes jobs
run faster.
I have yet to see any improvement in processing
time for processor intensive jobs as a result
of Smart Placement.
Performance is more a hardware issue than where
the data is on the drive.
> > Better to spend your money on backup than
> > defragging.
>
> You don't have to spent money on it
But some utilities make life easier.
And in order to backup you have to spend money
on one or more backup drives, or on optical
media. What makes you think you don't have
to spend money? Perhaps you are one of those
who relies on a recovery partition, then comes here
asking what do I do, my drive has failed.
"Ato_Zee" <ato_zee@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:JEYym.14389$Xz6.8172@newsfe18.ams2...
>
> On 7-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available@request.nl> wrote:
>
>> >> He only asked if defraggers checked a volume prior to moving data. So,
>> >> yes/no will do.
>
> You can only say yes or no for a specific defragger, but not
> for defraggers as a generalisation.
>
>> He didn't ask for defraggers to fix things.
>
> If OP is not interested in fixing things the query has no
> meaning. Concern about checking the volume implies
> concern about data integrity.
>
>> Well, some do/ some don't CHECK.
>
> As I said there is no yes/no answer.
>
>> > No defragger can cope with loss of data integrity on
>> > a failing drive.
>>
>> No, that wasn't the question.
>
> So you are suggesting that we say that all defraggers
> check the volume for integrity before defragging.
No, I am not suggesting that.
>
> Commit yourself to yes or no, since you are so
> concerned with an absolute definitive answer.
It's not about a definitive answer at all.
>
>> > Defragging if of questionable value and the MS$ utility
>> > does a fair job.
>>
>> No it isn't
>
> Oh do tell us why
Why?
>
>> Smart placement is just bells and
>> > whistles.
>>
>> No it isn't
>
> So tell us how smart placement makes jobs
> run faster.
Define 'jobs'
> I have yet to see any improvement in processing
> time for processor intensive jobs as a result
> of Smart Placement.
> Performance is more a hardware issue than where
> the data is on the drive.
>
>> > Better to spend your money on backup than
>> > defragging.
>>
>> You don't have to spent money on it
>
> But some utilities make life easier.
> And in order to backup you have to spend money
> on one or more backup drives, or on optical
> media. What makes you think you don't have
> to spend money? Perhaps you are one of those
> who relies on a recovery partition, then comes here
> asking what do I do, my drive has failed.
I am saying that a defragger that goes beyond that MS bult in defraggers
don"t have to cost money.
Your problem is, that you can't read and that makes this discussion useless.
On 7-Oct-2009, "Joep" <available@request.nl> wrote:
> >> Smart placement is just bells and
> >> > whistles.
> >>
> >> No it isn't
It is bells and whistles because it only benefits the
defragger by placing infrequently changed or accessed
files at the start of the drive, in non-fragmented
blocks. Where they do not get fragmented, so do
net repeatedly have to be defraged at each
defragmentation cycle.
The free MS utility does an adequate job.
System performance is a hardware issue,
Drive cache size, spin speed, access time,
pagefile optimisation, and a few other variables.
Try a few tests for yourself on drives that have
only been defraged with the MS utility, and
then on drives that have been detraged with
one of the cited utilities that has Smart Placement.
> I am saying that a defragger that goes beyond that
>MS bult in defraggers
> don"t have to cost money.
And is unlikely to yield any performance improvement,
stick with the MS one and invest in backup media.
Better use of your money.
Do disk defraggers check file systems first? 
Linear Mode
