Diskeeper with HyperFast?

O

Old Hippie

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
6,013
I'm a pretty big defrag fan and have used about every program you can think of.

I've been using Diskeeper 2009 with HyperFast enabled on my first two SSD drives (Titan 128GB and Intel 80GB M) and while I can't say if it's made a difference or not, it's been fun to see the difference between SSD and RPM drives.

I haven't read much about HyperFast lately and with the "Trim" command on the horizon it's probably a moot point, but does anyone else have any experience with this?
 
I used it for a while with my Vertexes and had to rebuild my box... I never reinstalled it and I cannot tell a lick of difference in real-life speed, and I'm real sensitive to that shiz. Everything is just freakin' fast. I disabled all of Window's defrag stuff.
 
Hyperfast supposedly works on ssd's differently than normal defragmentation. According to diskeeper's benchmarks, it can increase iops and transfer rate performance of SSD's. They do admit that the intel X25 seems to be unaffected by hyperfast, and I guess the vertex as well.

http://www.diskeeper.com/hyperfast/index.aspx

How it can possibly do this without using controller supported trim I'm not sure, and when hardware trim support and wiper type applications are commonplace it will be rather useless. My guess is that in diskeeper 2010 the feature will become another trim app that works in the background.
 
I cannot tell a lick of difference in real-life speed, and I'm real sensitive to that shiz.
Click to expand...

I'll second that emotion.

It does seem to show some fragmented/whatever sections when you scan the drives and it shows a reduction in these areas after an "Optimize" procedure, but I don't have any idea what it's actually doing.

For all I know, it could be a flat-out bold faced lie. :D

The Intel drive seems to have much fewer fragmented/whatever areas than the Titan but I really can't see any performance difference between the Hyperfast feature being enabled or disabled on either drive.

I'm still using all the SSD tweeks, including a RAM drive, and maybe that's why I see little difference between the Titan and Intel units.

I didn't figure many of us would be using Hyperfast and it looks like I had my tin foil hat adjusted correctly! :)
 
SSD access time is so small, no need to defrag. It can actually make it worse, as defragging is writing data to new parts of the drive, and once a flash drive has been fully written over once, it slows down unless you low level format it. IIRC win7 is getting a feature to do better on that front, see anandtech SSD articles for more info.

Back on topic I used to use DK and OO Defrag back in the day on xp/2k, but I have so far just been using vista default defragger. Any reliable info supporting the conclusion using one of these over default vista is worth anything?
 
Speed was the biggest advantage I noticed. As well as Diskeeper's background defrag. Their particular implementation in dk2009 is really nice since it really IS invisible to the user. Use it while you game, encode stuff, fold, etc, you'll never know it's there. I decided I didn't want to pay for it again though (used to have a dk10 license, non upgradable now :( ) so I grabbed auslogics free defrag tool. Extremely fast, but it doesn't have as many features as diskeeper. It can't defrag the MBR or do boot time defragmentation. It is just as thorough in normal use as far as diskeeper's analyse tool can tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top