Full defrag option via cmd

R

Ramzy

New member
Local time
10:55 PM
Messages
10
The defrag tool in Windows Vista and Windows 7 seems to skip fragments larger than 64MB in size in order to cut down on defrag times.

This problem was easily "solved" by going into command prompt and using the "-w" parameter.

Example: defrag c: -w

This option seems to have disappeared in Windows 7, and as such, large fragments are left unoptimized.

Is there anything that can be done?

vgoav9.png


2znzpsh.png
 

My Computer My Computer

At a glance

Windows 7 Ultimate
OS
Windows 7 Ultimate
If you actually tried it and it didn't happen I guess they killed it. In Vista I noticed even though the -b switch was not listed when you display command line switches, it still defragged boot files. Figure that one out!

Anyway, I'd recommend you search for a free tool that does a more thorough job. Since XP almost all defrag tools use the defrag API built into Windows anyway, so most of them are pretty safe(I would look on the site for verification that they use it, as example, MyDefrag/jkDefrag states it uses the API.)

I believe on MyDefrag you can set the "space hog" size. But you can check on the MyDefrag forum to see what the limits are.
 

My Computer My Computer

At a glance

Windows 7 32 bitAMD 5200+ dual core2 GBNVidia GeForce 6150SE 128 MB
Computer Manufacturer/Model Number
HP Media Center
OS
Windows 7 32 bit
CPU
AMD 5200+ dual core
Memory
2 GB
Graphics Card(s)
NVidia GeForce 6150SE 128 MB
Monitor(s) Displays
CRT
Screen Resolution
1280x1024
Hard Drives
500 GB Sata internal :

SIIG USB 3.0 docking stations w/WD Caviar Black 6 Gb/s drives
Keyboard
PS/2
Mouse
PS/2 Wheel Mouse
Other Info
SIIG USB 3.0 PCIexpress card.
Using the -b parameter still seems to invoke a boot optimization pass, however using -w doesn't seem to do anything. Large fragments still remain.

It also doesn't consolidate free space as much anymore. Large chunks of data are left untouched, and as a result, fragmentation is very quick to re-appear on the drive.

1tvk0j.png


Thing is, i have tested PerfectDisk, Diskeeper, O&O, MyDefrag / JKDefrag, and Defraggler. The Windows defrag option, for some reason, yielded the quickest boot up times.

All the other defrag utilities actually slowed down my boot up time, and caused my desktop to take an unreasonably long time to load in and become usable.
 

My Computer My Computer

At a glance

Windows 7 Ultimate
OS
Windows 7 Ultimate
The "trick" I used to do was use the built in command line defrag with the -b switch every now and then. Then use a 3rd party defrag for the interval. IOW, a boot defrag every couple of weeks, one of the other defrags every so many days or whatnot.

Someone I knew in the business who optimized mini-computers used to tell me the ideal set up(all HD speeds being equal) was to have 1 physical HD for system/executables, 1 physical HD for virtual memory, and 1 physical HD for data. It's changed a bit due to RAID but the idea is to have diversity of physical disks rather than one drive thrashing.

On a single physical disk any defrag strategy is going to favor one scenario or usage and hamper another. Engineering is usually making the best trade-off under the circumstances(long-winded way of saying nothing's perfect.)


edit: btw his method of defragging a HD wasn't to use a defrag program. He just did an image backup, then quick formatted the drive, restored the backup. Of course being in a corporate environment there were redundant backups so it wasn't as "risky" as it sounds here.
 

My Computer My Computer

At a glance

Windows 7 32 bitAMD 5200+ dual core2 GBNVidia GeForce 6150SE 128 MB
Computer Manufacturer/Model Number
HP Media Center
OS
Windows 7 32 bit
CPU
AMD 5200+ dual core
Memory
2 GB
Graphics Card(s)
NVidia GeForce 6150SE 128 MB
Monitor(s) Displays
CRT
Screen Resolution
1280x1024
Hard Drives
500 GB Sata internal :

SIIG USB 3.0 docking stations w/WD Caviar Black 6 Gb/s drives
Keyboard
PS/2
Mouse
PS/2 Wheel Mouse
Other Info
SIIG USB 3.0 PCIexpress card.
On that note...

I was talking a friend about this, and he linked me to the following article:
Engineering Windows 7 : Disk Defragmentation – Background and Engineering the Windows 7 Improvements

The key part of the article being this:
In Windows XP, any file that is split into more than one piece is considered fragmented. Not so in Windows Vista if the fragments are large enough – the defragmentation algorithm was changed (from Windows XP) to ignore pieces of a file that are larger than 64MB. As a result, defrag in XP and defrag in Vista will report different amounts of fragmentation on a volume. So, which one is correct? Well, before the question can be answered we must understand why defrag in Vista was changed. In Vista, we analyzed the impact of defragmentation and determined that the most significant performance gains from defrag are when pieces of files are combined into sufficiently large chunks such that the impact of disk-seek latency is not significant relative to the latency associated with sequentially reading the file. This means that there is a point after which combining fragmented pieces of files has no discernible benefit. In fact, there are actually negative consequences of doing so. For example, for defrag to combine fragments that are 64MB or larger requires significant amounts of disk I/O, which is against the principle of minimizing I/O that we discussed earlier (since it decreases total available disk bandwidth for user initiated I/O), and puts more pressure on the system to find large, contiguous blocks of free space. Here is a scenario where a certainly amount of fragmentation of data is just fine – doing nothing to decrease this fragmentation turns out to be the right answer!
Click to expand...

It's nice to know that they consider fragmentation a genuine issue worth investigating, and not just an archaic problem.
 

My Computer My Computer

At a glance

Windows 7 Home x64Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz2Gb DDR-2 1333MHznVidia 8800GT 1Gb
OS
Windows 7 Home x64
CPU
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz
Motherboard
Asus P5KC
Memory
2Gb DDR-2 1333MHz
Graphics Card(s)
nVidia 8800GT 1Gb
Sound Card
Onboard Realtek HD Audio
Monitor(s) Displays
Asus 19" 16:10
Hard Drives
2X 500GB SATA Samsung Spinpoint
PSU
700w Tagan Modular
Case
Thermaltake Armour Mini
Cooling
Stock
The natural tendency is to think of packing everything to the front of the disk. In fact I think back to Win9x I believe Windows would try to create new files after the used space on a partition to avoid breaking the file up to fit in open spaces. But then when you get that file you have to seek past all the packed in data. You have contiguous file but you have to take a big seek to get to it. It's been a long time since I read file system FAQs like about ext2,3, NTFS etc. but for the curious you can find them and the rationale for the design afa reducing fragmentation etc.

As example what they were saying about big chunks not being all that bad, if you run the benchmarks in Crystal Disk Mark you see that the performance takes a nose dive when you get down to the random reads and write with the tiny chunks. Bigger chunks don't fare so poorly.
 

My Computer My Computer

At a glance

Windows 7 32 bitAMD 5200+ dual core2 GBNVidia GeForce 6150SE 128 MB
Computer Manufacturer/Model Number
HP Media Center
OS
Windows 7 32 bit
CPU
AMD 5200+ dual core
Memory
2 GB
Graphics Card(s)
NVidia GeForce 6150SE 128 MB
Monitor(s) Displays
CRT
Screen Resolution
1280x1024
Hard Drives
500 GB Sata internal :

SIIG USB 3.0 docking stations w/WD Caviar Black 6 Gb/s drives
Keyboard
PS/2
Mouse
PS/2 Wheel Mouse
Other Info
SIIG USB 3.0 PCIexpress card.
The /R /W and /F legacy switches are still available in Windows 7, but they are not listed in the defrag /? for some reason best known to Microsoft.
 

My Computer My Computer

At a glance

Suffolk
OS
Suffolk
MilesAhead said:
Someone I knew in the business who optimized mini-computers used to tell me the ideal set up(all HD speeds being equal) was to have 1 physical HD for system/executables, 1 physical HD for virtual memory, and 1 physical HD for data. It's changed a bit due to RAID but the idea is to have diversity of physical disks rather than one drive thrashing.
Click to expand...

I have the same configuration, been using it for like 10 years, never had a single issue.

MilesAhead said:
his method of defragging a HD wasn't to use a defrag program. He just did an image backup, then quick formatted the drive, restored the backup. Of course being in a corporate environment there were redundant backups so it wasn't as "risky" as it sounds here.
Click to expand...

Lol, exactly my defrag method on WinXP and Symantec Ghost days.
 

My Computer My Computer

At a glance

Microsoft Windows 10 Professional / Windows 7...Intel i5-357016GB DDR3AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB
Computer type
PC/Desktop
OS
Microsoft Windows 10 Professional / Windows 7 Professional
CPU
Intel i5-3570
Motherboard
Lenovo Mahobay
Memory
16GB DDR3
Graphics Card(s)
AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB
Sound Card
(1) Realtek HD Audio (2) AMD HD Audio
Monitor(s) Displays
LG LS192WS
Screen Resolution
1440 x 900 @ 32bit color
Hard Drives
(1) SUV300S37A/120G (2) ST3500413AS SATA Disk Device AHCI mode enabled.
PSU
Corsair HX620
Case
Thermaltake V4 Black Edition
Cooling
Cooler Master Hyper 212 + Artic Silver 5 on CPU/GPU
Keyboard
Dell SK-8115
Mouse
Razer Copperhead with MAPED mat (awesome!)
Internet Speed
100 Mbps up/down
Browser
Chrome
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Can I Open Msconfig Tools Using CMD And Run One Of It's Tools Via CMD
Replies
7
Views
3K
wither 2
W
how can i disable power option in control panel via cmd or regedit
Replies
1
Views
3K
dragonx
D
defragmenting via cmd produces an error: some reigstry entries were mi
Replies
16
Views
7K
karlsnooks
K
Solved Want to access protected files via CMD prompt due to startup failure
Replies
1
Views
1K
funnyjon
F
Unable to defrag from CMD despite being logged in as Administrator
Replies
3
Views
6K
Ztruker
Ztruker
Back
Top