DiskTune on a boot disk.

[DiskTuneUser]

Hi.

I'm wondering if you can make a bootable Windows Vista DVD and run DiskTune from it?  With no files on the hard disk being used, I guess this method would ensure every single file is optimised, including the pagefile and other system files which are normally locked?

[Joep]

Hello,

Well, I have played with BartPE in the past (to make XP boot CDs), but not for DiskTune, but I suspect I can make that work. Theoretically I see no reason why DiskTune can't be run from such a CD/DVD. And if it can run from a XP boot CD/DVD I see no reason why it couldn't from a Vista boot CD/DVD.

That being said, I haven't tried this and I haven't tried any tools that can build Vista boot CDs or DVDs.

There's one thing though: To decide which files go where etc. DiskTune may assume it is running from the system drive, I am not sure, I would have to look at the code for that. And if it does, that would be something I need to address.

[DiskTuneUser]

You sound very enthusiastic about this idea.

I have read that if Windows has been hibernated, modifying the hibernation will result in damage. Source:
http://www.mydefrag.com/Manual-KnownProblems.html

The other problem is how to defragment a fully encrypted hard disk that uses pre-boot authentication e.g. TrueCrypt encryption.

Looking for a free defrag tool, I found DiskTune and I have seen your other products. I'm sure many others will find this site via DiskTune. 

[Joep]

FYI: I have done some research will add some code to determine if the partition that is defragged doesn't contain a hibernated Windows installation.

[DiskTuneUser]

That's brilliant, cheers. 

It's a shame that Windows has restrictions on what you can do. If Windows allowed defrag tools to move *all* files while Windows is running (online), we wouldn't need to defrag off a boot disk or require a boot time defrag driver (raw access).  It must be a nightmare for programmers of 3rd party software?  Windows 9x allowed all defrag tools to work online, so why did that change in Windows XP and later?  We may never know.

[Joep]

Hello,

From what I have read (not yet tried), Windows 7 will allow more (system) files to be moved by the defrag API. Hibernation and page files are different beasts and I doubt they will be movable (online).

Windows 9X didn't allow anything, there was no defrag API at that point and all defraggers did raw access. So they moved data and were responsible themselves for updating file system structures.

So as a matter of fact, that defrag API is a blessing for 3rd party developers. It's probably why there are now more defraggers available then ever before.

That being said: I myself do not worry at all about a few files being fragmented. I never defrag offline. And there are tricks for recreating the pagefile and hiber file in one piece and once you have accomplished that they stay in one peice in general.

[DiskTuneUser]

And there are tricks for recreating the pagefile and hiber file in one piece and once you have accomplished that they stay in one peice in general.

How's that done?

I know that you can make Windows run slower if you put the paging file on a different partition on the same physical hard drive.  Source (you will have to scroll down a bit on that page, to the part that says "Paging File - Moving"):
http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/XPMyths.html#Optimization

Do any of your disk tools support Linux and its filesystems e.g. ext3, ext4 etc.?

[Tom]

iRecover supports Linux file systems, though in a limited fashion (as opposed to native Windows support).

[DiskTuneUser]

Going a bit off-topic, have you tested things like iRecover on Linux using the Wine compatibility layer?  I don't know much about Linux yet, but I'm aware Linux is becoming more popular.  I'm becoming fascinated by Linux. 

Going back to running DiskTune on a boot disk...
In some situations you can't defrag a hard drive from a boot disk, such as having an encrypted hard drive, no bootable media available and so on.  The only boot time defrag (raw access) for Windows XP and higher available for free (that I'm aware of) is via the open source UltraDefrag.
Their website: http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/

Getting the boot time defrag driver to run on Vista 64-bit is a faff!  It requires tapping <F8> before Windows Vista 64-bit boots and choosing the option "Disable driver signature verification".  Having logged into Windows Vista, you have to right-click UltraDefrag and left-click "Run as administrator", click "Settings" and tick the option "Enable" under "Windows boot time scan" and reboot.  Again: start tapping <F8> before Windows Vista boots and choose "Disable driver signature verification", then the UltraDefrag boot time defrag driver will run and defrag the system files.  When you log into Windows, remember to untick the "Enable" box you ticked earlier, otherwise the boot time defrag will try running every time you start Windows!

The problem is that Windows Vista 64-bit will not allow unsigned drivers to run, unless you manually override it.  Despite all that faff, boot times are a bit quicker.

I feel that DiskTune works better than any of them bloated and cluttered commercial defraggers, none of which monitor the temperature of your hard disk, which DiskTune does and that's the main reason I trust it running for a long time.  Also, I think that defragmenting the hard drive too often will shorten it's working life, so I only defrag once a month.

[Joep]

Hello,

No, iRecover will not run in Linux. The only Linux support is that we can analyze and recover EXT2/3 volumes, but iRecover will be running inside Windows.

Yes, Ultra Defrag is the only free one I am aware of that can do this. And indeed 64 bit Windows Vista and version 7 probably as well do not like unsigned drivers. However, regarding Windows 7 defrag API, Micrrosoft says:

?Defragmentation in Windows 7 is more comprehensive ? many files that could not be re-located in Windows Vista or earlier versions can now be optimally re-placed. In particular, a lot of work was done to make various NTFS metadata files movable."

So perhaps in the future the need for boot time defrag will be less. I haven't yet experimented with Windows 7.

I feel that DiskTune works better than any of them bloated and cluttered commercial defraggers, none of which monitor the temperature of your hard disk, which DiskTune does and that's the main reason I trust it running for a long time.  Also, I think that defragmenting the hard drive too often will shorten it's working life, so I only defrag once a month.

Yes, I agree with you, defrag only once every few weeks maybe. Optimize I run maybe every 2 or 3 months. If I feel booting is getting slower, program loading is getting slower I may run an Optimize in between the regular interval.

More program may start monitoring disk temperature during defrag. I already noticed that the DiskTune shortcut method was copied by a commercial defragger. I think the temperature monitor makes sense, so they may copy that as well in the future.

[DiskTuneUser]

Thanks for replying, I love computers, even when they become annoying 

So Microsoft releases Windows Vista and tells us how wonderful it is, but not long after that we have Windows 7 that's basically a "fixed" version of Windows Vista, I don't know when Windows 7 will be released as gold?  With regards to the Windows 7 defrag API, why has it taken them this long to make it work 'properly'? Developers of 3rd party tools like DIY DataRecovery are hampered by these and other restrictions. I've read that Linux being open source is a "Godsend" to programmers as there are no restrictions or copyright etc.

Here's another crazy thing about Windows.  In Windows 98, the built-in defragmenter would accelerate application loading times by ordering a program's defragmented .exe, .dll and other files next to each other on the hard disk, in the order they were loaded.  For example, program abc.exe and abc1.dll, abc2.dll and lots of other files are loaded when you run abc.exe, if all these files are defragmented and placed next to each other in the same order they are loaded, then program abc will run much faster!  According to the source link, when a program was executed on Windows 98, something called Taskmon would watch how the program loaded, along with its .dll files etc. and record this in a folder called "applog".  Using the applog information, the defrag program would optimise the application loading times.

Source: http://cwdixon.com/support/win98_support/disk_defrag.htm

I'm not sure why this feature was removed?  Does the prefetcher and layout.ini in Windows XP and higher do the same job or improve upon it?

[Tom]

My 2 cents:

I've read that Linux being open source is a "Godsend" to programmers as there are no restrictions or copyright etc.

Which is why we have a zillion versions of Linux (distros) roaming the compuscape. I don't consider that a good thing, and it only proves the point that Linux has a high "fiddly" factor. You have to like working with computer innards to work with Linux. Well, maybe that's not entirely true, but i think that the absense of good standardisation (and no real proofing) makes for a muddy scene.

Windows XP still has a mechanism to put files close together during defrag, and i'm sure later versions have this too. The use of layout.ini (win xp and up) is comparable to the use of applog in Windows9x (if i'm not entirely on the mark here, Joep will correct me). Prefetching (pre-loading of executable code during the load phase that comes before the desktop is shown) is something else altogether, but still a big improvement over the rather wonky win9x loading mechanics.

Source: Windows resource kits (98 through XP).

[Joep]

Hello,

I love computers too. Only sometimes not.

Well to me it appears as if the defrag API evolves. In the beginning there was no defrag API at all, so having one is an improvement. If I recall correctly the defrag API was largely done by Executive software, and then licensed by Microsoft. I do not know if the current defrag API is still based on that development.

As far as I remember Windows 9x defrag didn't do that by itself, you needed some Intel speed-upper for that. So then it wasn't actually removed, it was never in there but instead relied on some third party software.

Layout.ini lists apps and dlls etc. that are launched while Windows is loading and apps that are loaded in some period after Windows was started.

Grouping all those makes sense as those are all loaded 'at the same time', so all little improvements will result in something noticable. IMO grouping all apps plus their dependencies will hardly result in a noticable or even measurable improvement. Also, programs will not run faster, they'd only load faster (theoretically).