I was always under the impression that defragmenting would decrease my used space and increase my free space. However, when I run Defraggler I find the opposite is true. I thought the defragmentation process included finding and eliminating fragments of files left behind by incomplete uninstalls for instance and that's where the increased free space would be generated. I'm obviously wrong so I'm turning to those more accomplished to answer my questions. Why does free space decrease when I defragment and what actually happens when I defragment my laptop? Does it actually remove fragments that don't seem to belong anywhere? Thanks in advance.

What version of Windows? What defrag program do you use?

Sorry. I have Windows 7 and I'm using Defraggler.

With Win 7 your hard drive is formatted using NFTS not FAT. Under FAT the cluster sizes were often very large. So each sector had a minimum size. So with a highly fragmented file, it might use several clusters that were only partially filled. By defragging, less clusters were used, making more space available. With NTFS fragmentation is not the same issue. The major reason to defrag is to speed up disk access by keeping the parts of a file in contiguous sectors. Freeing up disk space is not the issue it was under FAT.

Why not use the defrag built into Windows? I'm not familiar with Defraggler, but I would test using both to see which performs better.

I basically understand what you are saying. I've been using Defraggler for so long now that I've actually forgotten why I switched from the one supplied by Windows but I seem to recall being in a forum asking why my fragmentation was around 15% at the time and someone proceeded to tell me that Defraggler scanned more areas than the one that was built into Windows. So, I installed Defraggler and my fragmentation over the course of a few days went down to zero% with zero fragmented files and zero fragmented bits. That is not to say though that I wouldn't have gotten the same result if I had run the defragmenter built into Windows over the course of those few days. The bottom line is that once Defraggler got to zero files and zero fragments I saw no reason to go back to the other one.
One more question for you. You seem to downplay the importance of defragmenting with my system. Would you go so far as to recommend not defragmenting at all then? My boss thinks it's a waste of time but I'm not sure of his expertise. If there's a time in your mind when I should defrag, how can I tell when it should be done? What should I notice as a symptom? Thanks for your time and knowledge.

This may have been truer in older version of Windows. But with the switch to NTFS defragging was not the imperative it was in older versions. And, in fact manually doing a defrag should be an infrequent task, Do it if you believe your system is slowing down. But it should no longer be a regular maintenance issue as it used to be.

Defragmenting a drive doesn't save any space, it just re-orders stuff in a more efficient fashion for speedier access. To gain room, you need to do a file cleaning (that's were a good cleaner will find those fragments you mentioned and get rid of them if you wish) to retrieve space. The more likely culprit with free space disappearing when you defragment would be System Restore has created a point somewhere along the line and taken up space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appzalien

Defragmenting a drive doesn't save any space, it just re-orders stuff in a more efficient fashion for speedier access. To gain room, you need to do a file cleaning (that's were a good cleaner will find those fragments you mentioned and get rid of them if you wish) to retrieve space. The more likely culprit with free space disappearing when you defragment would be System Restore has created a point somewhere along the line and taken up space.

---

Good point about a Restore point taken up the additional space.

However, defragging DID used to make more space available by reducing wasted space in clusters.

Thank you both for your responses and sharing your knowledge. I think I have a clearer view of it now. Thanks again.

For a more visual representation of why Fat32 uses more space than Ntfs consider a file that's 8 bits long ||||||||, and for the sake of argument lets say fat32 stores files in 6 bit sectors, so the first sector gets filled but the remainder is wasted space |||||| ||XXX. It would require 12 bits to write 8. Ntfs on the other hand (just for explanation sake lets say it stores in 3 bits though its more like 4kb segments) |||, so to do the same 8 bits it would be ||| ||| ||X. One wastes three bits while the other wastes only 1 to fill the eight bit requirement.

In fact, its more like Fat32 uses 512kb (kilobits) sectors and Ntfs uses 4kb sectors. So you can see where a 513kb write will waste the second 511 bits though with Ntfs 4kb segments only the final 3 or less can be wasted once 513 is reached. When a fat 32 partition becomes fragmented the 513 kb can be broken up into 12 sections each requiring its own 512 sectors and defragmenting can reorder the structure so that all but the last sector is completely filled and recover that lost space.

Make sense? I used the structure of 5 and 3 just for the argument, that's not the real space they use. There's a good chance that in future file systems the structure might even be lower like 2kb sectors but that's a stretch.

oops I missed an X in the fat32 likeness |||||| ||XXXX so it would waste 4 bits not three.

Good explanation, Appzalien. Believe it or not I could follow the math. I understand it a little more now. Thanks.

It's also important to realize that a very badly fragmented drive can force an installation to install fragmented. If a program needs 6 gigabytes of room (a game for instance) but the largest completely connected free space is only 2gig, it has to install itself all over the place using the largest spaces available which can make the game run poorly. There have even been games that instruct you to defragment before install because from testing they realized the game would freeze or stutter if installed to a fragmented drive. I personally like Perfect Disk Defrag cause it will also defrag the page file and system files with a reboot although there are others that do it as well. There are people who poo poo the system and page file defrag saying it does no good but I feel safer and Perfect Disk only recommends it if the files are badly fragmented.

Auslogics is a free version that supposedly does a better job than windows built in defrag system, but it has limited functions and cannot defrag from a boot like Perfect Disk can. Free is good though, don't you think? When you use freeware you can update and allow it to check for new versions without the fear associated with using a cracked version of something like so many do. Free or buy is the way to go, but cracking is dangerous and can infect your system.

Thanks for the info, Appzalien. First, forgive my ignorance but what is "cracking"? Also, is there a maximum percentage of fragmentation beyond which I should defrag? I realize that the percentage would be relatively arbitrary but what I'm looking for is a rough estimate as to how high I should let it go without concern. Thanks again in advance.

Cracking a program allows you to use it longer than the trial limit (usually 15-30 days) or it will change a limited version to full (some trial video or photo editors mark their results with a water mark so the end video is not clean). Make no mistake, cracking or fixing a program is illegal and the same as stealing. It's my opinion though that a 15 day trial is often not enough to even learn some programs let alone truly test them out. There are plenty of free and open source programs out there to do just about anything a paid program will do, so fixing is not really necessary anymore unless you really want to delve deep into one before you pay for it. There are a few programs that are so good I don't even look for open source, I buy them, Acronis True Image is one and Photoshop Elements another.

Cracking is a Hacker term meaning to crack open a programs protections to let it run as a full version indefinitely, but fixes are the fastest way to infect your computer too. Programs offered as fixed or cracked are often just a scam to get you to load a virus or Trojan onto your machine so the creator can access your personal information or use your e-mail to spam others. I will not go any further than an explanation since even discussing it probably breaks the rules, but in order to protect yourself from the evil net you need to know what to avoid, or at least what your could be getting yourself into by risking it.

I agree. This Acer laptop came with a Microsoft Office 2007 60 day trial, beyond which it turned into a view only program. I think 60 days is adequate to make a decision on that but 15 days doesn't allow sufficient time to test and decide quite often. Ok, thanks again for the info.