July 04, 2008

Go Green and Save Some Green - with Diskeeper

We recently released two new white papers. One paper was the result of a very interesting experiment (carried out by 3D Professor - an independant software/hardware testing group).

Given that hard drives use considerable energy, the theory was that fragmentation might cause a hard drive to expend more energy accessing fragmented files. The results of the tests were fairly substantial; a relatively heavily used workstation (a high-end system built with some of the most recent eco-friendly hardware) with only mild fragmentation could save 12% on power costs. Over the course of a 'business year' that equals over $20 USD. A conservative estimate for the average desktop or laptop, while probably more fragmented than the test case, can very likely save $10-$15+ in energy costs a year. Combined with the increased performance and reliability that defrag offers, you can save some green while being green.

The second paper goes in to details on how fragmentation applies to new storage technologies/systems. A few sections of this paper have been posted in the blog over the past few months, so some of it may be familiar.

Both papers are available on the Diskeeper Knowledge Center. The link is on the top left side of this page.

Posted by Michael at 01:28 PM | Comments (0)

June 09, 2008

Access Time Graphs in the Diskeeper Analysis

After running a manual analysis, Diskeeper will open a new window with two tabs. The first is the Volume Map display and will show a visual depiction of File Performance or File Structure. The second tab provides the detailed data. It is separated into numerous sections; Recommendations, Health, Access Time, Statistics and Most Fragmented Files.

A question we get on occasion is what the two bar graphs in the Access Time section represent. The graph labels tell you what is measured, Fragmented Files or All Files, but how does this relate to performance?

The first graph is probably best viewed as a "Worst Case" scenario. That graph shows how long it takes to access all the fragmented files, and only those fragmented files. As you can imagine that probably almost never happens. One case where this might apply is a database volume that contains only those small handful of potentially all-fragmented database files.

The second graph shows how long it takes to read all the files on the volume, both fragmented and contiguous. This is likely closer to a "Best Case" scenario. Unlike the Worst Case scenario, this has a bit more real-world applicability. One such example is running an anti-virus/spyware scan or a volume file backup, as those processes read the entire volume.

Typically you'll find a performance gain somewhere in between the two graphs. As fragmentation affects the files you use (read/write/delete) you will likely be accessing/writing a good percentage of fragmented files, relative to all the files on a volume.

Keep in mind that the Access Times are good general indicators, but aren't designed to watch exactly how you (or your users) use the PC/Server.

Posted by Michael at 06:51 PM | Comments (1)

April 07, 2008

New Diskeeper 2008 Build (781)

We have a new update of Diskeeper available on our website. You can use the Check for Updates feature in the software or simply pull down the new Diskeeper 2008 trialware and install it over the top of your existing full version of Diskeeper 2008.

If you need to install the update to multiple computers, you can download the software from here.

Here is a list of main changes in build 12.0.781:

1. Fixed a flaw that caused a minor error message when the Diskeeper Service was shutdown (e.g. when shutting down the system). This error did not stop Diskeeper from functioning. (introduced in build 770)
2. Improvement to I-FAAST to better process files in the same folder, that are frequently deleted and recreated under the same file name.
3. Included support for correctly processing wildcards in the Diskeeper file exclusion list. Also fixed a couple of minor bugs related to file exclusion list.
4. Made enhancements to the News and Information feature to send info more appropriate to the user's location and the product edition used.
5. Removed displaying an error message when News and Information feature is unable to connect to a Diskeeper News Server. A message is now logged in the Event Log when this occurs. (introduced in build 770). This error did not stop Diskeeper from functioning.
6. Boot-time defragmentation is disabled in Windows Vista SP1 and Windows 2008, due to a feature incompatibility on those operating systems / service packs. A correction in a future update will re-enable the feature.

Posted by Michael at 09:21 PM | Comments (8)

February 28, 2008

New Diskeeper 2008 Build (12.0.770)

We have a new update of Diskeeper available on our website. You can use the Check for Updates feature in the software or simply pull down the new Diskeeper 2008 trialware and install it over the top of your existing full version of Diskeeper 2008.

Here is a list of main changes in build 12.0.770:

1. Full feature support for Windows Server 2008. Note the previous builds of Diskeeper already installed on Server 2008 but did not include Bootime defragmentation.

2. Changes have been made to improve the logic (the new Smart Defrag of v2008) that determines when Diskeeper should run it's "extreme defrag" engine (low free space or severe fragmentation). Previously the volume had to be really badly fragmented AND extremely low on free space. In other words there was a middle ground where DK might not provide expect results. Now Diskeeper will detect if its other defrag engines aren't doing well enough and then, if needed, run this powerful new engine.

3. Fixed the problem with the Volume Map for volumes larger than 8TB and a cluster size of 4KB. It is now displayed correctly.

4. Fixed the problem with running on clustered servers where Diskeeper would lose volume settings after one of the nodes was shut down.

5. Microsoft Logo Certification for Windows Vista (Diskeeper 2008 Professional) and Windows Server 2008 (Diskeeper 2008 Server).

6. Fixed several other minor bugs.

7. Diskeeper News and Information feature added.

Posted by Michael at 10:50 PM | Comments (2)

February 26, 2008

The Sexy Laptop? - Move Over MacBook Air

Rob Enderle, president of Enderle Group and a well known and respected technologist had this to say about the new super lightweight laptop from Lenovo:

"It's the first ThinkPad since the mid-'90s that I actually think is sexy," he added. "Thinkpads are known as solid products, but not really for being sexy. It's just very thin, very light. It's kind of a technology showcase. This thing has all the bells and whistles that you could possibly aspire to in a notebook."

I can't say that I've ever heard that adjective used to describe computer hardware, but hey, to each his own :-).

Weighing in at under 3 lbs. it sports a 64GB Solid State Disk. To keep that SSD in top form, Lenovo chose to include Diskeeper software as part of the pre-install. Lenovo testing showed that only Diskeeper, with some special changes, could keep that SSD optimized.

Find the full system specs here.

I'm just wondering - does that qualify Diskeeper as "sexy software"?

Posted by Michael at 10:27 PM | Comments (6)

February 25, 2008

Diskeeper at the Windows Server 2008 Launch Event

If you registered for the sold out Launch Event in Los Angeles this Wednesday, stop by our booth. We're in the MS Partner cheap seats as a Bronze partner.

After the Steve Ballmer keynote ends (10:15-ish), the partner exhibits will be open. We are located near the food court on table top #68. In addition to trialware CDs with a new update release, we'll be handing out free "Put More Fervor in Your Server" t-shirts.

Posted by Michael at 05:57 PM | Comments (0)

February 12, 2008

11 Things for Patchkeeper to do today

It's been a while since Patch Tuesday offered so many updates. Here's a list provided by Shavlik Technologies, the software that powers Sitekeeper's Patchkeeeper module. Once Shavlik engineers test and certify these patches, they will be available for deployment in Patchkeeper. If you are running this Sitekeeper module make sure you are running the latest update (3.5.209).

MS08-003: Vulnerability in Active Directory Could Allow Denial of Service (946538)
Severity: Important

MS08-004: Vulnerability in Windows TCP/IP Could Allow Denial of Service (946456)
Severity: Important

MS08-005: Vulnerability in Internet Information Services Could Allow Elevation of Privilege (942831)
Severity: Important

MS08-006: Vulnerability in Internet Information Services Could Allow Remote Code Execution (942830)
Severity: Important

MS08-007: Vulnerability in WebDAV Mini-Redirector Could Allow Remote Code Execution (946026)
Severity: Critical

MS08-008: Vulnerability in OLE Automation Could Allow Remote Code Execution (947890)
Severity: Critical

MS08-009: Vulnerability in Microsoft Word Could Allow Remote Code Execution (947077)
Severity: Critical

MS08-010: Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (944533)
Severity: Critical

MS08-011: Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Works File Converter Could Allow Remote Code Execution (947081)
Severity: Important

MS08-012: Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office Publisher Could Allow Remote Code Execution (947085)
Severity: Critical

MS08-013: Vulnerability in Microsoft Office Could Allow Remote Code Execution (947108)
Severity: Critical

Posted by Michael at 10:12 PM | Comments (2)

February 01, 2008

Diskeeper TV

OK, I know this sound ridiculous but let me explain; and NO, this is not a 30 minute TV show about defrag.

Diskeeper TV will be a series of short video clips on a variety of subjects that relate to system performance and the role Diskeeper plays. The purpose is really to shortcut reading a manual or white paper to find out some information - quickly.

We want to bring you content in a fast and easily digestible manner. 12 page white papers, 3 pages of install notes, 2 more pages of How-To's and Best Practices aren't fun to read - and they pile up. Sure, sometimes these things are necessary, and we aren't replacing that either, but we hope this new format helps you out.

I have to say that we're also doing this to have some fun - we're a bunch of marketing/PR guys with time to kill. And, while we aren't taking ourselves seriously (in the light-hearted spirit of this project) the topics will be all business.

We've started the site here, with a few "general" videos to get the ball rolling. We have a few more clips in the works for the next few weeks, but after that we want to here from you want specific topics you'd like covered in a 1-2 minute video clip. The topic covered can be as technical as you request or as basic as needed. We'll try to accommodate every comment.

Please let us know by commenting here in the blog!

Update (3-13-08): Microsoft just posted some Diskeeper videos on their Home Server pages. Check them out here.

Posted by Michael at 01:23 AM | Comments (0)

January 31, 2008

Computer Outlook Interview on Windows Home Server

John Iasiuolo, host of Computer Outlook, interviewed Joel Sider, a Senior Product Manager, this past Monday (1/28/08) about the new Windows Home Server (WHS) system.

The interview discusses the basic purpose of Home Server, who it was built for, computer-heterogeneous support (i.e. Mac's), some of the Add-In applications available (both free and commercial), such as tools that help you publish your own websites, to hosting your own blog, to performance apps like Diskeeper.

Joel wraps up the interview with info on where he expects to see the Home Server ecosystem evolve in the future.

If you are new to what Windows Home Server is all about or simply curious (and have an hour to kill) this podcast can give you a good overview of what this technology can offer. Listen to it here.

The podcast can be downloaded from here.

Posted by Michael at 07:24 PM | Comments (0)

January 30, 2008

New Software Release Now Available

We've just released a new version of Disk Performance Analyzer for Networks (DPAN) for use by corporate IT professionals. It's a free tool that can be installed on any supported Windows OS connected to a network (Windows-based Domain is highly recommended). From that single point you can select other networked systems and scan them for fragmentation and disk performance statistics. It provides specific details on each system as well as a high-level aggregation of systems into performance ranges. While this functionality is already available in Diskeeper 2008 Administrator, it is now available in a free product.

Here's a list of just some of the additions in the new DPAN:
Create custom groups for easy management
Select systems to scan through the Active Directory or IP Addresses
Run scheduled reports and have the results automatically e-mailed to you
Export performance reports to a portable and sort-able format (CSV)
MSSQL database storage

Go to the downloads page to get it.

Posted by Michael at 06:42 PM | Comments (2)

January 15, 2008

Installing Diskeeper HomeServer on Windows Home Server (WHS)

As several customers have reported, our current instructions for Windows Home Server installation is quite sparse (actually it's not even there). Our apologies on any confusion this may have caused. I'm posting the instructions here for existing customers. New customers (starting in the next couple of days) will get this delivered with the software. We're also looking to streamline the install process in a future release.

Here they are:

The Microsoft Windows Home Server (WHS) operating system is primarily intended to run on a "headless system", meaning it typically has no keyboard or monitor. Instead, most Windows Home Server system management is done via the Windows Remote Desktop Connection feature from a separate Windows XP or Windows Vista computer. These instructions follow this model, and assume that you are familiar with connecting remotely to your Windows Home Server system.

Follow these steps to install Diskeeper HomeServer on your Windows Home Server system and add it to the Windows Home Server Console:

1. If you have not done so already, copy the Diskeeper HomeServer installation file into a shared folder that is accessible to the Windows Home Server system (e.g. D:\shares\Software) .

2. Connect to your Windows Home Server system via the Windows Remote Desktop Connection.

3. Open My Computer on the Windows Home Server system and navigate to the Diskeeper HomeServer installation file. Double-click the file to start the installation.

4. Follow the prompts displayed as the Installation Wizard guides you through the installation. You are given the opportunity to enable Automatic Defragmentation of all the volumes on your Windows Home Server system. Enabling Automatic Defragmentation allows Diskeeper with InvisiTasking to keep the performance and reliability of your Windows Home Server disk volumes at their peak levels, in a truly invisible, Set It and Forget It manner.

If you are installing the full version of Diskeeper HomeServer, you are also given the option to allow Diskeeper to be activated silently, with no intervention from you. Lastly, you can specify the destination folder for the Diskeeper installation. By default, Diskeeper will be installed at C:\Program Files\Diskeeper Corporation\Diskeeper\. When the installation is complete, click Finish to close the Installation Wizard.

After Diskeeper has been installed, it is necessary to add it to the Windows Home Server Console. Follow these steps:

1. Open the Windows Home Server Console by double-clicking the appropriate shortcut on your Windows Home Server desktop. This will open the Windows Home Server Console.

2. Click Settings to open the Windows Home Server Settings Console.

3. Click Add-ins in the task pane on the left side of the Windows Home Server Settings Console, then click the Available tab in the Available Add-ins area. You will see the Diskeeper HomeServer Console listed as an available Add-in.

4. Click Install to install the Diskeeper HomeServer Console Add-in. After the installation is complete, it is necessary to close the Windows Home Server Console.

5. When you restart the Windows Home Server Console, you will see a new toolbar icon for Diskeeper. Click this icon to open Diskeeper HomeServer within the console.

After opening Diskeeper, you can change any of the settings as described in the Diskeeper Help and User's Manual. Of course if you enabled Automatic Defragmentation during the installation, there is no need to make any changes. Your file fragmentation will be handled automatically and invisibly by Diskeeper using the InvisiTasking advanced background processing technology.

Posted by Michael at 07:10 PM | Comments (9)

January 14, 2008

Computer Outlook interviews from Storage Visions and CES

The Computer Outlook radio show was tabbed as the premier press group to cover the Storage Visions show the weekend before CES. Almost one for one, vendors exhibiting at this show also had a floor presence at CES.

And, as if working full days on the weekend weren't enough, the Computer Outlook crew moved over to the Las Vegas convention center for CES so they could continue their crazy high-paced interview schedule through Thursday.

To listen in to their interviews at these two trade shows visit their site.

The interviews range from the Senior Product Manager of HP's Home Server group to Seagate to Microsoft Sync (the voice technology in some of the new Ford/Lincoln/Mercury vehicles).

We also did an interview at CES with Dave Graveline of Into Tomorrow.

We also did a quick video interview with Keith Shaw of NetworkWorld. As cool as defrag is (yeah right), we just couldn't compare with our nieghbor the "real" air guitar - I have to get one of these!

The Diskeeper contingency wrapped up our Vegas stay at the PC Mag 25th anniversary event (our thanks to PC Mag for the invite). When people are dancing on tables you know you are at the right party!

Lastly, our thanks to John Iasiuolo for inviting us to take part with production of the show. It was great meeting the rest of the Computer Outlook team.

Posted by Michael at 10:19 PM | Comments (0)

December 05, 2007

DK'08 Feature Spotlight - VSS Compatibility Mode

Over the coming weeks I'll highlight the new features and explain more about how and why they were developed. I'm starting off with one of the more obscure features which I briefly mentioned last month. This blog adds more information on the relevance of properly supporting VSS.

Let me first start off by defining Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS). VSS is a feature first introduced, by Microsoft, with Windows Server 2003. It uses a block-level copy-on-write technology to store the bits of data that changed within a file. Then, at scheduled intervals, it takes "snapshots" of the data on a volume, storing the changes currently held. Unfortunately, without special consideration, defragmentation and VSS aren't very compatible. The issue is described in detail in a Microsoft Support Article.

Diskeeper 2008 has a new (VSS) Compatibility defrag mode. This feature will run a special defragmentation method on Volumes that have VSS enabled. This method defragments the volume is such a way to minimize the FSCTL_MOVE_FILE(mechanism in Windows used by defragmenters)/VSS conflict. During our research and development of this feature we spoke with the Microsoft NTFS and VSS developers. By implementing certain procedures, we ensured we can provide the user the performance benefits of defragments without all the negative overhead on VSS and loss of snapshots of changed data.

So why is this feature important?

If you are running Windows Vista, Windows 2003 Server or Windows Home Server you have the VSS feature. Excess VSS activity due to defragmentation without a VSS-compatible mode, will create overhead on your PC, your network, and possibly conflict with proper use of VSS itself.

WHS will enable VSS on all client systems that it is automatically backing up (does this by default). This can cause extra network traffic as all the VSS changes on the client systems are being backed up to the WHS system. For these cases, we recommend enabling the Diskeeper VSS-Compatible mode on the client systems.

Data Protection Manager (DPM) is an enterprise scaleable version of what WHS does with Vista clients. In this case DPM does this for Server 2003 clients, backing up VSS data from remote servers, across the network, into a centralized storage location.

So, if you're running Windows Vista, Windows 2003/2008 Server, Windows Home Server, or Data Protection Manager, and want to optimize the performance of your drives, Diskeeper's new feature will come in handy.

For those who want to see some technical testing results, we'll have a paper published in our Knowledge Center in the next week or so.

Posted by Michael at 11:13 PM | Comments (4)

November 09, 2007

Upcoming Software and Technical-Paper Releases

We have a number of update builds planned for Diskeeper 2008 and Undelete 5.0 in the coming weeks. I'm posting some info here as advance notice.

For Undelete, we have a new 5.0 build with new features planned. Possibly even next week.

We also have a fully functioning Diskeeper 2008 Server product that we will release as a "Release Candidate" for Windows Server 2008 (aka Longhorn). This one, unlike the currently available Diskeeper 2008 software, will have Bootime defrag!

We also have a new update for Diskeeper 2008 with more Bootime defrag functionality as well as some improvements to the "controller logic" that determines when to run the "extreme defrag" engine. I'll explain these points in detail once the update is available.

I'm also assembling a new paper that compares the new Diskeeper 2008 functionality to previous version of Diskeeper, such as the extreme conditions defragmentation and Volume Shadow Copy Service compatibility. It will present test results, some charts, graphs and related info.

The best way to receive notification about new software updates is the product's Check For Updates feature, but I'll also post a notice here on the blog.

Posted by Michael at 09:40 PM | Comments (10)

November 01, 2007

Windows Server 2008 Support

Diskeeper 2008 Server and EnterpriseServer currently install and, for the most part, work on Windows Server 2008 operating systems. The only feature in Diskeeper currently not supported is Bootime Defragmentation, which is currently being worked on. You can grab the trialware from Diskeeper.com to test.

We also worked with Microsoft to be one of the first third-party applications (Microsoft engineers actually said we were the first they knew of) to support Windows Server Core, a minimized (less functionality but also less resource usage) iteration of Windows Server 2008.

As the Diskeeper user interface is a snap-in to the Microsoft Management Console, you can use the Diskeeper Administrator console to deploy Diskeeper software (Server, EnterpriseServer) to the remote Windows Server 2008 Server Core system and then bring up the Diskeeper graphical user interface (GUI) using the Remote Control feature - and have access to the full Diskeeper GUI.

Official support for Windows 2008 will be available prior to the official Microsoft release date. It will be a free update for all Diskeeper 2008 users. That update will also include a number of additional minor features.

Once administrators become familar and comfortable with the new feature, I expect Server Core to be a popular and welcome addition to Windows 2008. Leveraging virtual machines to house numerous specially purposed (e.g. DNS) Server Core instances, with their smaller resource footprint, on a single physical system can be a great way to make the most effective use of hardware.

Posted by Michael at 01:26 AM | Comments (0)

October 31, 2007

Gauging the Impact of Fragmentation with PerfMon

To determine fragmentation's impact on a disk subsystem (single disk or RAID/SAN), you can employ performance monitoring technologies. Window's includes a built in tool called PerfMon (Performance Monitor) that can collect and graph this data. Specifically you will want to direct it to the PhysicalDisk object. Performance monitoring for purposes of determining event-based change (such as defragmentation) requires proper before (baseline) and after comparisons. This means that a similar extended period (e.g. one week) must be compared to determine improvement. No other changes, such as adding new hardware, can be introduced during the test periods. The periods measured must cover, to the degree possible, the same work load.

Here is a sample scenario:

1. On a Friday afternoon, install, but do not activate, an enterprise-class disk defragmenter [Diskeeper Server], and run the tools native analysis functions.

2. Save the defragmenter's analysis reports.

3. Start the PerfMon baseline on a Monday and let it run without any other hardware/system settings changes for one full week.
-Avg. Disk Queue Length (should have no more than 2 per spindle)
-Avg. Disk Read Queue Length (used to further define disk queues)
-Avg. Disk Write Queue Length (used to further define disk queues)
-Avg. Disk Transfer/sec (should be less than 50-55 per spindle)
-Avg. Disk Read/sec (used to further define transfer rate)
-Avg. Disk Write/sec (used to further define transfer rate)
-Split IO/sec (should be less than 10% of Disk transfers/sec value)
-% Disk Time (should ideally be less than 55%, over 70% is typically an issue)
-% Idle Time (to check legitimacy of % Disk Time)

4. Using the disk defragmentation software, run another analysis and save the results.

5. Activate the defragmentation tool the following Monday morning and let it run for two weeks.

6. Using the disk defragmentation software, run the final "after" analysis and save the results.

7. Compare (plot them on the same graph) the first and last week periods and note changes (improvements) in the measured counters from week one (no defrag), to week three (defrag complete and still active). The disk defragmenter's reports will provide you data on the changes to file fragmentation as part of this before-and-after comparison.

8. If desired, stop defrag operations for the fourth week, and continue to monitor disk performance, to note reversal of achieved performance gains. Accompany this with another disk defragmentation analysis.

The handy Performance Monitor Wizard, available at Microsoft's website can ease the learning curve in setting up and using PerfMon.

No counter will independently determine the impact of fragmentation. If the disk is fragmented, many of these counters will show metrics higher than acceptable levels.

hIOmon by HyperI/O:

Diskeeper partner, HyperI/O, has developed a full "file I/O performance" evaluation kit, targeted specifically at determining the impact of fragmentation. Due to it's robust feature set, this is my recommend product/method for experienced Server Administrators familiar with benchmarking and performance evaluations.

Posted by Michael at 10:50 PM | Comments (0)

October 30, 2007

Optimizing Your SQL Server's I/O Performance

Many IT professionals who purchase Diskeeper originally begin evaluating the product after they experience issue they determine stem from badly fragmented disks.

It starts out that something breaks, or simply slows to a crawl (e.g. SQL Server). As they investigate they use systems management and monitoring tools to narrow down the source of the issue. This is especially true on servers, where split seconds can add up to thousands of dollars of lost revenue.

There are a number of technical articles that delve into specifics that can be used to diagnose this situation. One such paper on SQL Server is Troubleshooting Performance Problems in SQL Server 2005.

In the section I/O Bottlenecks, it describes a number of counters to look for that can help pin point the source of the poor performance. I've also written about these counters in white papers and noted how many are indicators of fragmentation.

As I mentioned, we see customers regularly trial and purchase Diskeeper as they find the software resolves these discovered bottlenecks. For example, we recently had two cases where a SQL Administrator discovered Average Disk Sec/Read was very high on their database servers.

Per the Microsoft article, the following is a gauge of what Average Disk Sec/Read mean:

Less than 10ms = very good
Between 10-20ms = okay
Between 20-50ms = slow, needs attention
Greater than 50ms = serious I/O bottleneck

So when I mean they found a high count for Average Disk Sec/Read, I'm understating the issue as they were seeing 200ms and 300ms delays. That is well into the "serious" part of the scale.

As you would expect, the article provides possible solutions to address that I/O bottleneck. However, one solution not explicitly stated is to defragment. The two IT Professionals that found those really high wait counts ran Diskeeper and, using just the software alone, brought the Average Disk Sec/Read back to around 15 and 30ms. That's a tremendous improvement in performance! Employing some/all of the other appropriate solutions now that the volumes are kept fragment-free will bring these SQL servers into optimal ranges.

It isn't uncommon for defragmentation to be left off a list of solutions, as it is still unknown to many. A clue that you should evaluate a defragmenter is when you read or hear a recommendation to increase I/O bandwidth -such as adding more disks. Example: your SAN vendor tells you to add another controller or array. If there is substantial fragmentation, Diskeeper will typically provide better results, as it actually fixes the issue rather than masking it, and it's a whole lot cheaper.

Posted by Michael at 12:32 AM | Comments (1)

October 24, 2007

Diskeeper 2008 Technical Review

If you use/game on a high-end professional workstation or gaming rig, you might find the the technical review I mentioned in a recent entry of interest. It is now live on the 3dprofessor website. You can read the review here. As part of their evaluation, they compared Diskeeper 2007 to the new Diskeeper 2008 using the software listed below:

-SPECapc for 3ds Max(TM) 9
-SPECviewperf(R) 10
-Autodesk 3ds Max 9 SP2
-SiSoftware Sandra XI SP4
-HD Tach Version 3.0.4.0 (Journalists Edition)

Posted by Michael at 08:10 PM | Comments (9)

October 10, 2007

Diskeeper HomeServer Beta - starting soon

Thanks to all those who applied for Diskeeper HomeServer Beta testing. We've had a number of eager volunteers ask where they can get the software to start evaluating. We appreciate your enthusiasm and assistance - it's awesome!

For those of you inquiring, I want to let you know we are completing Alpha testing and our usual rigorous internal certification process.

At Diskeeper Corporation, Alpha testing is what we refer to our "bug testing" field test. What we call a Beta version is synonymous with the industry definition of "Release Candidate". Feedback from Beta helps to polish any rough edges, provide info to marketing about the features you like best, and in the rare event a bug is found, gives us that additional round of user-testing to ensure a solid stable product on final release.

So, if you've already claimed a spot in beta, congratulations! You won't have to wait to much longer. Expect to see the software possibly later this week.

PS: we still have 7 spots available.

Posted by Michael at 02:43 AM | Comments (2)

August 23, 2007

The Burton Group on Fragmentation and Virtualization

The Burton Group is one of IT's leading analyst firms. They research IT architecture, infrastructure, governance, new technologies and other IT-relevant strategies and create detailed advisory reports.

In a recent free report, the Burton Group covered the popular topic of Server Virtualization. In a particular section they covered disk performance and correctly granted that subject significant importance.

Here are some quotes from the paper:

"Over time, the fragmentation will continually degrade performance of the virtual disk."

"File writes and deletions will fragment a virtual hard disk, like any physical hard disk, over time. Running scheduled disk defragmentation operations at periodic intervals or using a disk defragmenter application that defragments disks in real time is the best approach to prevent fragmentation-related disk performance degradation."

Of course Diskeeper Corp strongly recommends the real-time approach as the most effective and modern method for solving fragmentation.

You can sign up to access Burton Group's free papers including the one mentioned above here.

Posted by Michael at 07:26 PM | Comments (2)

August 22, 2007

Are you interested in testing software?

We're looking for a few good software testers. At this time, we are specifically looking for IT professionals who manage 20 or more computers, and can test Diskeeper Corporation software in production environments (or lab replications of production environments).

If you meet this criteria please email our Quality Control group at qtesting@diskeeper.com and let them know you are interested.

We may expand our test group to include home users next month. If we do, I'll provide a new specific contact email address here in the blog.

Posted by Michael at 12:27 AM | Comments (0)

August 21, 2007

Diskeeper HomeServer - our plans

We've been receiving strong interest in Diskeeper for the new Windows Home Server (WHS) platform. One of the questions we are regularly asked is "how much will Diskeeper cost?"

Given that our current Server edition (which already works on WHS) goes for $299, that's a fair question. We certainly recognize that that price is high for a consumer, and you will find that when we release our official version, the price will be far more attractive.

The current plans are that we will have Diskeeper HomeServer available for small and mid-size OEMs in the next week or two. It is already available for the major OEMs signed up with Microsoft to deliver Home Server boxes.

When WHS hits the streets, Diskeeper HomeServer will also be available for users to buy. Expect to see it available on the Diskeeper online store, Windows Marketplace and other online resellers.

The current WHS release date (as much as Microsoft will divulge) indicates that you should be able to get your hands on one in early October. Because WHS is a full package of hardware and software, the final release date is contingent on the readiness of the major hardware vendors producing WHS computers.

Several of our developers and I have been experimenting with WHS and we love it. If you have 3 or more PCs in your home, this product is definitely worth checking out!

Posted by Michael at 12:04 AM | Comments (2)

August 01, 2007

SATA, NCQ and Disk Fragmentation

A DiskeeperBlog reader recently had this question, and I felt it deserved it's own thread:

"Does NCQ (Native Command Queuing) on the newer SATA drives help in reducing fragmentation, or the impact of fragmentation on HDD performance? I have run across this subject recently on a few sites, and I'm thoroughly confused about what NCQ does to fragmentation." - Durian

---

A very good question and, I agree, a very complicated one. As it turns out, I'm in the midst of a very long white page paper on various data storage technologies and how they relate to fragmentation. In it is a semi-completed "chapter" on SATA, SCSI, FC (Fibre Channel), and SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) disks. I've taken a small excerpt from that section to address your immediate question. I apologize in advance if it reads poorly as it still needs some polish.

I recommend chapter 1 of the "Shortcut Guide to Managing Disk Fragmentation" by Microsoft Product Manager Mike Danseglio, for technical references. Wikipedia can help define some of the technologies described if you need more info.

As seek optimization is interelated with the technology of queuing , I'll describe both and explain the relationship.

An important concept to keep in mind when reading this is that only the file system understands the 1's and 0's as separate files (e.g. Report.Doc). Physical disks operate as block-level devices, unaware of whether an incoming set of data it is asked to read or write is originating from one single file or from a number of different files.

Disk/File defragmentation allows the operating system to only have to pass along a single, or small number, of requests for data to the disk subsystem, rather than a great many.

Seek Optimization :
There are a number of disk-level algorithms to minimize the impact of physical limitations such as rotational latency (waiting for the disk to spin back around). They include variants of elevator-seeking and shortest-seek-first. These algorithms leverage the disk buffer, prioritizing retrieval of data physically closest, by measure of the data's cylindrical location and/or how close the requested data is to the current location of the disk head. These technologies have already been implemented in hard drives by drive manufacturers for many years now. Seek optimization does not eliminate the need to defragment. While it improves on rote data retrieval methods of the past, it cannot and does not account for file fragmentation because it is a "block" based technology. Seek Optimization organizes and prioritizes data retrieval based on physical location of data blocks on the disk platter. It does not operate on a "file object" level. On that note, defragmenters solve "file" fragmentation, and do not get involved in block-level allocation.

NCQ:
Native Command Queuing (NCQ) is a technology that allows a SATA drive to intelligently re-prioritize and queue disk requests while completing others (up to 32). You could say that it is like dynamic multi-tasking at the disk level. SCSI disks have long supported command queuing (TCQ - up to 256) before SATA and NCQ were created. While queuing will improve prioritization strategies and overall seek time for small asynchronous I/O (random/non-linear - in other words, not a large MPEG file), it does not address "file" fragmentation. Command queuing is also "block" based, essentially providing buffer space for seek strategies to be more effective.

In summary, for all the I/O the disk is requested to process at a given time, it cannot optimize its activity for a particular file because it does not know what of that requested I/O is from one file or another. The disk will simply retrieve the blocks of data in the fastest way that they can be. As a example, you may get half of two different files open before you get all of one, and then the other, open.

To answer the original question, NCQ does not solve fragmentation. While the performance benefit that NCQ does provide is irrespective of file fragmentation, they are complimentary.

Posted by Michael at 01:28 AM | Comments (0)

July 18, 2007

New White Paper on Diskeeper and Windows Vista

Windows IT Pro recently researched and published a new paper evaluating Diskeeper on the new Windows Vista operating system. You can view the paper (sponsored by Diskeeper Corporation) here.

We are also wrapping up another study, done in-house by our Development Testers, evaluating the improvement to anti-malware scan times when using Diskeeper. Check out our Knowledge Center in a couple of weeks to read it.

Posted by Michael at 12:03 AM | Comments (4)

July 06, 2007

Diskeeper 2007 completes Vista Logo certification

For anyone interested (a few people have asked), we just completed the Windows Vista logo certification requirements.

No major changes to the product except that you'll find, in builds 11.0.707 and higher, a couple of Diskeeper files that used to be placed in the systemroot folder moved to the standard Diskeeper folder in Program Files. To accomodate this new path, the Diskeeper installation creates a new entry in the Environmental Variables so the sytem can properly find these files.

Posted by Michael at 11:52 PM | Comments (0)

July 02, 2007

Defragmenting Databases. Myth or Real-McCoy?

"DO NOT DEFRAG DATABASES!" is one of the more popular myths/misconceptions we encounter in promoting and selling Diskeeper.

BTW; when I define database (DB) servers, I also include purposed servers such as email, Domain Controller, DNS, etc. And of course MS SQL, Oracle, Sybase, and others (where the DB back-ends an app - e.g. a Customer Relationship Management program).

I've seen technically comprehensive studies measuring IO throughput and transactions per second (TPS), performed by customers, validating the need for defragmentation of their database servers. They spend weeks/months of careful execution, verifying the source of performance issues and that defragmentation truly solves them.

The degree of benefit that defragmentation brings to databases depends on several factors. The obvious of course is the degree of fragmentation. The less obvious include the purpose of that database and how it is used. Defragmentation is not going to solve all DB-optimization requirements, but it is a piece in the puzzle.

Often a recommendation to "NOT defrag" hinges on the, understandably, accepted conception that defragmentation-generated I/O will impact the use of that DB. That is especially true when that database must operate at capacity 24/7. I agree with those caveats 100%. With free/built-in defragmenters, there is a use/benefit trade-off, and they can do more harm than good. That is where advanced defragmentation technology such as InvisiTasking comes in.

If you are interested in more information on defragmentation and databases (i.e. does Diskeeper defragment the internal records?), there are white papers in our Knowledge Center (see link on the left), as well as product reviews by DBAs (Database Administrators). Here is a link to a recent review done by SQL-Server-Performance.Com.

Posted by Michael at 11:34 PM | Comments (0)

June 22, 2007

The Impact of Fragmentation on Flash Drives (iPods, Jump Drives, etc)

One of the questions that comes up on occasion is "should I defrag my iPod, my SD card, or my USB drives?". To answer that, let's first take a step back and make note that these drives (also known by other names such as thumb drives, jump drives, solid state disks, etc) are flash-based storage devices (the largest I've seen is 32GB). They are used in Digital cameras under the names of SD cards, compact flash, memory stick, etc. The iPod and other MP3 players either have miniature hard disk drives (HDD), typically called microdrives, in the larger storage models, or flash-based drives in the smaller, 2Gb-4GB, such as with the iPod Nano. The exact nomenclature of a flash storage device depends on it's "interface". If it uses a USB interface it is typically called a jump drive, if it uses a SATA/SCSI interface and is intended to replace a hard disk drive, it is called a Solid State Drive (SSD). Other flash devices include the aforementioned digital media storage devices such as Memory Stick, Compact Flash, etc...

In a nutshell, Flash based disks do not use a spinning disk and can access data randomly without any performance penalty. That may seem to obfuscate the benefit of defragmentation, and to a good degree it certainly mitigates the need. Flash and SSD devices are good at reading data, but are not as good at writing data. The reason for the poor write performance is that these (NAND based) devices must erase the space used for new file writes, immediately prior to writing the new data. This is known as erase-on-write or erase/write. Improvements in this area are coming (phase-change memory).

However, flash devices running FAT or NTFS file system do still fragment the same way that a HDD would. Non-Windows products, like digital cameras/camcorders, use the FAT file system (FAT16 or FAT32, depending on the size of the drive). FAT file systems are more susceptible to fragmentation than NTFS.

The greatest drawback of flash devices from the perspective of fragmentation is it is slow at sequential I/O, such as with writing a large file.

Here's a quick test you can do yourself to show that severe free space fragmentation on Flash drives does affect performance. I did this myself, as a test run.

I took a brand new Kingston 1GB DataTraveler Hi-Speed USB drive with 24MB/sec read and 10MB/sec performance (per the manufacturer).

First I did a format of the disk - FAT16 (you'll need to use FAT32 for drives over 2GB). Then, using a development testing tool from Diskeeper Corp I fragmented the free space. I used Diskeeper 2007 to confirm the fragmentation as well as DiskView (a more granular tool available from Microsoft - formerly SysInternals). I created about 45MB of small files (16k to 48k in size) spread all across that Flash disk.

I then grabbed the VM Player install file (145MB), and made five more copies of it and zipped (Winzip) them into single 846MB zip file. This file was kept on a separate spindle (SATA disk) from the OS and paging files (to minimize variables from my time tests).

I used a simple stop-watch to time how long it took to copy this file from the SATA disk to the USB Flash drive with fragmented free space. It took 2:37 from start to finish.

I reformatted the USB drive, to the FAT16 file system again and rebooted the PC (just to make sure the cache was clear). I then copied that 846MB zip file from the same location over to that USB drive. This time the copy operation took 1:14, less than half the time required to copy than when the free space was fragmented.

Deleting a large, fragmented file also takes a long time.

From a "scientific" perspective the test can be run a few more times to come to an average, but given the difference was so significant, I personally did not feel the need to redo it. You can reverse the test order, and even use a program to zero-out the flash drive, just to eliminate any minor possible variables. Anyone else is certainly welcome to give this a go for themselves.

I did test one more case where I fragmented the free space into 24 even chunks and found no difference in copy time. While severe free space fragmentation is an issue, mild free space fragmentation is not - same concept as on physical disk. And yes the 846MB was fragmented in 19 pieces.

To create the free space fragmentation (without the development tool I'm privileged to have access to), you can copy a large number of small files to the Flash drive and deleted every other one, or other random deletion pattern (vary between deleting every third, fourth, fifth ...n file). If you have some programming skill this can be
scripted fairly simply. Just make sure there is enough room left on that USB drive after fragmenting the free space to copy the same test file. The more severe the free space fragmentation, the longer the copy operation will take.

That said, the degree to how this translates into actual usage depends. A real-world equivalent might be with a digital camera/camacorder where you mix various sized mpegs and jpegs, and use the device to delete some of these files from the drive. Unless you wipe the disk, the free space fragmentation will build up.

The test case I made up may be so extreme that it is unreal. I don't know what's "real-world" as I don't personally use Flash drives that often, and even then my actual usage isn't likely to equal yours. How often you want to consider free space consolidation depends; my best-guess is once every 6 months or so. The limited extent to which I use USB drives and the fact my 2GB mp3 player only ever gets minor and infrequent file changes, I doubt I'll personally ever need to worry about the free space fragmentation.

PS: We've been working with several of the technology leaders in the Flash/SSD industry for some time. They have been kind enough to send us pre-release devices for our R&D efforts. Expect future innovations from Diskeeper Corporation and those industry partners to improve performance and reliability on these storage devices.

Posted by Michael at 05:50 PM | Comments (4)

June 20, 2007

Diskeeper and SANs - A blog for Server Analysts/Administrators

SANs typically employ a clustered/SAN file system to pool disk arrays into a virtualized storage volume. It is called in Wikipedia a "shared disk file system".

This is not NTFS, but rather a proprietary software, provided by a SAN hardware or software vendor such as EMC (Celerra), LSI (StoreAge SVM), VMware (VMFS), etc... VMFS, for example, uses between 1MB to 8MB storage blocks. This file system essentially "runs on top of NTFS", it does not replace it.

Keep in mind that every file system is a "virtual" disk. Stacking one virtual component over another (i.e. one file system on top of another) is very doable and increasingly more common.

What the vendor of a SAN file system does at "that" file system is irrelevant to what Diskeeper does. Claims that "you do not need to defragment" may be misunderstood and incorrectly implied to mean "NTFS". It is very possible that you do not need to defragment the "SAN file system". The expert on that file system and the source from which you should get setup tips, best practices, and SAN I/O optimization methodologies is that manufacturer.

As for NTFS, it still fragments and causes the Windows OS to "split" I/O requests for files sent into the SAN, creating a performance penalty. You can measure this using Window's built-in PerfMon tool and watch the split I/O counter. You can also use the Average Queued Disk I/O, given you account for the number of physical spindles. Diskeeper partner Hyper I/O has a much more advanced tool called hIOmon. Iometer (formerly from Intel - now open source under GNU Public License) can be used to stress test mock environments for fragmentation.

Given that SANs are ONLY ever block-level storage, they do NOT know what I/Os relate to what files. Therefore they cannot intelligently spread the fragments of a file across multiple disks. A whole mass of separate I/Os
writes/reads for fragmented files (which will most certainly be interspersed with other simultaneous data writes/reads) will be non-optimally spread across the disks in the SAN storage pool (i.e. write more fragments of a
given file to one disk rather than evenly spreading the data across all the disks). SAN file system vendors may offer optimization strategies to, over time, move data around the disks as it learns typical data requests (such as from that fragmented file incorrectly laid out on the disks) are not properly load-balanced across SAN spindles. Generally speaking, the above holds true for disk striping as well (RAID).

I've been working with numerous high-profile SAN vendors, who are also Diskeeper partners. One for one, when I speak with SAN designers or developers, they agree that NTFS fragmentation IS an issue and advanced defragmentation is important ("basic" defragmenters can actually cause problems). Later this year we'll publish an very in-depth, about 15 page, technical paper on modern disk storage technologies based on joint research projects with some of these industry partners. I'm busy working on the new Diskeeper and Undelete releases, but I'll post a link here when it is published.

Posted by Michael at 12:10 AM | Comments (0)

June 07, 2007

Home Disasters - An Ounce of Prevention and Other Tips

I came across an interesting story on ComputerWorld today.

It discusses the recovery of lost files in one of those "emergency" situations. The author recommends defragmenting and discusses the use of various file recovery tools to assist in a modern day spin on the "damsel in distress" drama. Reading the article, you really feel for the anguish they went through, not something I'd want to ever go through.

As noted in the article, the system on which the events took place was Windows XP. Windows Vista (Biz,Enterprise and Ultimate), to its credit, does include a type of file backup solution using technology called ShadowCopy. Just like you would use your camera to take a snapshot of a visual image, Vista will take a snapshot of your data. More specifically it takes point-in-time copies of your data so you can change back. While this can definitely help in disaster circumstance as described in the article, it isn't as effective as the Diskeeper Corporation product Undelete, because Undelete is "event-based" . That means Undelete captures EVERY change, not just changes on an occasional time-basis, where snapshot type methods expose you to data loss in the gaps between snapshots. With Undelete pre-installed, the entire trying circumstances to restore lost photo's depicted in the story would have, almost certainly, been averted.

The real key to Undelete is that it is really "Data-Protection" more so than "File Recovery". In the disaster events described in the article, a data protection technology would never have exposed the digital photo files to the possibility of being overwritten. Yes, Undelete does have some of the emergency file recovery features as well. One feature that Undelete does not include (because we concentrate on "data-protection") is what the author noted in the article as "Raw" reads. There are a few fairly good tools on the market that do RAW reads for fairly affordable prices (one is mentioned in the article). One other such tool I can recommend is File Rescue Plus from SoftwareShelf (a Diskeeper Corporation reseller and close partner).

Taking a step back and detailing some of the other comments in that story, the "protection" technology of Undelete would also mean that defrag (which typically increases the chance of file recovery) also would not cause the potential negative effect of overwriting the space that a deleted file used to occupy (because that "space" is now being protected).

And when I say this (I'm sure that I'm preaching to the choir), you should have an automatic backup solution in place to ensure you have a duplicate copy of important data. Use another hard drive, or DVD/CDs to store copies. Don't leave this up to a manual, every-once-in-a-while-when-you-remember-to-do-it-solution. Even a simple batch script that copies data from one drive to another is a start. While I already think that a manual approach is a bad idea when it comes to defragmentation, it is a REALLY bad idea when it comes to backing up your data. One product I like (and their US office is down the street from my house) is NovaBackup from NovaStor.

One other personal recommendation is to never store data on your C: drive.

I know this is kind of tough to overcome, because most PC's come from the manufacturer with one hard drive formatted into one "volume"; the C: drive. If you aren't already familiar with it, educate yourself on "partitioning". There are numerous tools on the market to help with this, even if you purchased your new PC with a single 300GB C: drive.

Personally I partition my PC, separating the operating system, from non-critical applications and data. I do store important apps (for performance reasons on the first partition of a physical disk) - using separate physical disks / RAID with parity, when possible. Taking it a step further, I also put the paging file on a seperate physical disk, from the OS, as well. IT Professionals who manage business servers practice this religiously. Also, in conjunction with a partitioning strategy, there are ways for system administrators to "hide" the system drive from non-administrative users on desktops and laptops. I've not seen this implemented that frequently in practice, but I still recommend this in a business setting (especially for those roaming laptops that store local data).

While the author already described the fact that a C: drive is very active with operating system activity behind the scenes, the key reason in my opinion, to not store data on the same volume as the operating system is more basic. If you're like me, you are constantly tweaking your computer or installing and uninstalling programs. If your operating system ever gets into some really serious issue and you need to re-build/re-install the operating system you are likely to overwrite that data you have stored on the drive. Pulling the hard drive out of one computer and daisy-chaining it to another to extract data is a real pain.

Apart from that primary reason, there are a number of other good reasons.

Due to hard drive physics, it is better (for performance) to use more smaller capacity drives than fewer larger capacity drives. Four 250GB drives are better than two 500GB drives which are better than one 1TB drive. It is also safer from the standpoint of RAID with parity - to account for physical disk failures.

The one possible argument against partitioning, for the reason I noted, is the prevalence of free virtualization software, where you can do all the tweaking and experimenting in the VMs instead. You'll just need to license more software. But then of course, the best practice for VMs is to place them on their own volumes / physical disk drives anyways.

Another option, in lieu of seperating data onto dedicated volumes, is to do regular and full system "images" (e.g. Acronis, Ghost, etc). That works, but for overall practicality I prefer the solutions described. Those imaging solutions still make for good data backup solutions though.

In the end, make use of volume partitioning or multiple hard drives (as appropriate), use a good automatic backup/imaging solution, and use Diskeeper and Undelete. That combo will give you an excellent foundation for a reliable computing experience.

I'll end this blog with one last reference. Tweakguides has an excellent manual for advanced and novice users alike. It's put together by Windows guru Koroush Ghazi and I highly recommend it.

Posted by Michael at 09:05 PM | Comments (4)

June 05, 2007

New Build - Diskeeper 2007 (11.0.709) Available

Here is the short list of adjustments. These changes were done to accomodate requirements our upcoming certification for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2003. There aren't any "bug fixes" that would require you to install this newer build. This info is just to give you an overview of the changes.

1. The Boot time defragmentation engines are now located in the Diskeeper installation folder (\Program Files\Diskeeper), instead of System Folder (as per Vista Logo requirements). A few other minor changes that don't affect the user were also implemented to ensure this new Vista requirement functions properly.
2. If Diskeeper is installed to remote computers across the network, (e.g. using Diskeeper Administrator/Active Directory/SMS) any user launching the user interface the first time will see a brief per-user configuration to implement that user's custom settings for the Diskeeper interface.

Posted by Michael at 12:37 AM | Comments (5)

April 27, 2007

Program not found - skipping AUTOCHECK

Preface: this article refers to making direct edits to the Windows Registry. If you are not experienced with this subject, ask your company's IT Administrator or a computer-expert friend/neighbor for help.

Our Tech Support group has seen a few reports of this error (Program not found - skipping AUTOCHECK) from customers when running Diskeeper's bootime defrag. The error starts early in the boot process while the Session Manager process (smss.exe) is busy getting the system up and running. Smss.exe is critical to loading the paging file, initializing the registry and loading kernel components. But, before it does any of that it looks to a registry key called BootExecute. At that location it launches any applications listed. Session Manager then looks to the Windows system32 folder for particular executables it has been instructed to launch. By default there is only one program listed here - autochk.exe, the boot-time version of chkdsk, which will run if there are any file system inconsistency flags detected (i.e. volume dirty bit is set).

Read on for the solution...

Software vendors who need exclusive access to a volume (such as a defragmenter) will name proprietary executables at this registry location (and place the programs in the Windows system32 folder). Using this system is how Diskeeper is able to safely defragment files that could not be defragmented when the system is up and running.

However, malware creators have also used this BootExecute location to load their spyware/virus crap.

If you uninstall a legitimate program that has written into this BootExecute registry you may see this message. The uninstall will typically delete the executable from the system32 program, but not edit the registry. In most cases, the registry change is only a temporary one. For example: if you set Diskeeper to run a Bootime defrag "on next reboot" but uninstall it before the reboot, you can create the same issue. Once the Diskeeper Bootime defrag completes, it removes this string from the registry. Other applications are likely to behave similarly. It is also possible that a program, during install, writes data into this key, but then does not remove it on uninstall.

Another possibility is if you have run an anti-malware program that has removed the referenced executable from the system32 folder, but not changed the BootExecute registry to remove the "pointer" to that file. In that case you will also see this message.

When the program named is from a removed third-party vendor, the message is harmless. You should only be concerned if the default autochk program itself does not run.

If you do get this error and want to clean it up, here's what you need to do:

Look in the registry at:

"HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager" and remove the string [the name referenced in the message on system startup] from the BootExecute value.

Under normal circumstances only the following would be present:

autocheck autochk *

This is what it might look like with added values:

autocheck autochk * autocheck stera

You can change the value back to the default (as shown in the first example above), but understand that it may possibly impact a legitimate program listed here.

Stera.exe is part of an adware program that pretends to be an anti-adware program!

As always, you need to be very careful editing the registry. If you see anything else listed here other than the executable named in the error message, look at named file's properties in the system32 folder or do a web search on it. A legitimate vendor can advise you on what to do to avoid potential conflict.

For Diskeeper it would look like:
autocheck autochk * autocheck AUTONTFS E: PAGE=KEEP DIRS=NONE MFT=MIN

(where E: represents the drive letter on which to run the bootime).

You can also reset it back to the default (autocheck autochk *) without issue. That is the safest bet with Diskeeper. You'll simply need to go back into Diskeeper and reset the Bootime job.

Diskeeper customers are always welcome to contact our support team for assistance.

Posted by Michael at 10:39 PM | Comments (34)

April 26, 2007

In the Oven in 2007

Here's a quick overview of a few things we have in the works for Diskeeper:

We will have an incremental update for Diskeeper Administrator in the coming weeks that will provide more options to volume license customers with regards to activation.

Just a few of the big things planned for the future are I-FAAST 3.0 (some really cool new performance technologies!), FragShield 2.0, and the evolution (and integration?) of a former technology-pioneering Diskeeper Corporation product.

PS: We have such a FULL feature list planned and designed (the most ever), we just don't have enough developers to code it all. So, if you are a senior (C++ or C#) developer in the Los Angeles area interested in contract work or contract-to-hire (no recruiters please), check out our job openings for more info.

Posted by Michael at 08:36 PM | Comments (0)

April 06, 2007

Software Update - tips and tricks

If you ever need to update (note this does not include full version upgrades), a quick trick is to grab the trialware from the Diskeeper download page, and install it right over the top of existing installation.

Usually the newest build is available via Check For Updates in the software, so you'd never need to consider this. That Check For Updates feature, by the way, also downloads trialware.

Posted by Michael at 11:33 PM | Comments (0)

February 07, 2007

Windows 98, ME, NT4 and Vista Ultimate support

While Diskeeper 2007 ended support for older Windows operating systems (Windows 98, ME, NT4), Diskeeper 10 is still available if you still use one of them. You can request this from your reseller of choice during your purchase (many still stock this version). I recently visited a large regional electronics franchise and saw a few boxes of Diskeeper 10 Professional available on their shelves.

...

If you are running Windows Vista Ultimate, Diskeeper 2007 Home edition will provide an update for this operating system shortly. The current Diskeeper 2007 Home edition for Vista does not support it, but if you purchase(d) Home edition you will, of course, receive the update free of charge. Diskeeper Professional and Pro Premier do currently support Windows Vista Ultimate.

Posted by Michael at 09:16 PM | Comments (1)

January 22, 2007

Here it is - Windows Vista support

We're as excited to offer this software as many of you have been to get it (my apologies for the delays). Your patience has allowed us to deliver an excellent and well-tested product.

The Diskeeper 2007 software for Windows Vista is a free update, for all current Diskeeper 2007 customers. If you purchased Diskeeper 2007 or have a valid maintenance contract (i.e. upgrade assurance) to Diskeeper 2007 you qualify for this free update. If you don't run Windows Vista, stay tuned as there will be a Diskeeper update coming very soon (use the Check for Updates feature in Diskeeper) for Windows 2000 and Windows XP/2003 users.

As you know, the current Diskeeper versions do not install on Windows Vista, which means the Check for Updates feature won't help. So, the way you can get this product is to contact us and we will send you an email with a link to download the software. Keep in mind that this product is for Windows Vista only; at this time it will not install on Windows XP or Windows 2000. To expedite your request place the words "Diskeeper for Vista Request" in the subject line of the email.

Trialware will be available on the website later this week for anyone who does not yet own Diskeeper 2007.

Here's how to get Diskeeper 2007 for Vista:

If you are volume license customer, contact your Account Manager (Sales Rep). Your volume license reseller, in case you don't know who your Account Manager is, can contact them on your behalf.

If you are a home user or a small business customer, located in North America, who purchased online from Diskeeper.com, contact the Website Sales Team at WebSales@Diskeeper.com. You will need to provide the following:

-Your full name
-Your email address (the one initially used to purchase the product)
-Your order number
-Place the words "Diskeeper for Vista Request" in the subject line of the email.

If you purchased from a North American retail store or online reseller other than Diskeeper.com, you will need to have registered the software. Once this is done, contact Customer Support at Service@Diskeeper.com. You will need to provide the following:

-Your full name
-Your email address (the one initially used to register the product)
-Registration number (or a fax copy of the proof of purchase from the box - note, this will take longer to process)
-Place the words "Diskeeper for Vista Request" in the subject line of the email.

If you are a home user customer who purchased from our European or Asian offices/partners, please contact the sales teams at those locations. Place the words "Diskeeper for Vista Request" in the subject line of your email. This web page can help direct you: http://www.diskeeper.com/international/international.asp

Posted by Michael at 10:13 PM | Comments (36)

January 08, 2007

Some More Info on "On-The-Fly" Performance

I want to clear up a few confusions I've seen recently on the internet. Diskeeper 2007 introduced on-the-fly defragmentation for the first time in the Diskeeper product line but, it should be stated, Diskeeper was not the first performance tool to do this.

This "real time" defragmentation has been on our development plate for many years, but it lacked a technological advancement before we could add this into the product. As Diskeeper is one of the highest selling software utilities (usually 7th or 8th, by volume in North America, after Norton AV, Ghost, and antivirus from a couple of the other major vendors) we have a tremendous responsibility. We sell many millions of licenses each year, and a good number of them end up on mission critical servers in the world's largest companies. The product, as it evolved into a truly automatic program, had to ensure that the product offered all the benefits and none of the drawbacks an on-the-fly application might generate, on these massive server systems.

The benefit of addressing the consideration of a high-powered SAN or application server also translates to the small business and home user, as they now get a technology designed for some of the most powerful Windows-based computers in use today. Kinda of like putting a turbocharged sports car engine in an economy car, but still getting the MPGs.

Speaking of car analogies, it brings up another. The following is an article I wrote for the Diskeeper 2007 release, but it seems appropriate to re-publish here... [forewarning: this is a marketing article, not a technical one :-) ]

Introducing a Revolutionary Way to Change Your Oil:

Regular scheduled defragmentation has often been compared to changing oil in your car. An excellent analogy, because if you fail to address this regular maintenance task, eventually the engine breaks down. The same effect occurs on computers system that aren't regularly defragmented; severe fragmentation can lead to reliability problems.

Yes, the best engine is one that doesn't need an oil change/maintenance, but that product has yet to be delivered.

Diskeeper pioneered Set It and Forget It, decades ago, offering a "regular scheduled oil change". It became advanced enough by the time of Diskeeper 10.0 that those oil changes happened without most users aware it was even happening.

This concept of scheduling has become far more commonplace and Microsoft has recently acknowledged the importance of this activity; following our lead.

Manual defragmentation is an unbelievable pain; compare it in proportion to having to change the oil in the car yourself. Sure you may know HOW to do it, but it takes time and effort.

Scheduled defragmentation was far more livable. It could do this for you. However the problem was that you may have had to schedule this maintenance time outside of production time, because it caused some performance hit, or because that was how the technology was developed (i.e. to be scheduled).

Changing your oil involves flushing out all the current fluid. With the built-in this maintenance time is analogous to "down time" or to follow the analogy, your car was parked in a service garage getting processed (rather than you being able to drive it).

When you think closely, scheduled oil changes also do something else non-optimally. They change ALL the oil, not just what needs to be changed. Is it really true that after 3000 miles every oil particle is equally degraded? Unlikely; but to finitely replace only the worn oil and leave the viable oil is technologically improbable (shy of an oil dialysis machine) if not impossible. It certainly doesn't make much sense given that it would be more work to implement this than just toss and replace all the fluid. Synthetic oils allowed you to delay the scheduled oil change until around 7500 miles, but you still have to get the maintenance done.

Now, what if you could replace just the oil that actually needed replacing and save the oil that was still perfectly good? Now, building on that thought, what if you could replace the deteriorated oil exactly when it was degraded (using new technology); and not have to wait until 3000 or 7500 miles?

That would be real AUTOMATIC oil changes; far better than scheduled oil changes. It would be much like the sun coming up every morning - it just happens! How long you have to wait in between oil changes is irrelevant. It simply is no longer an issue.

Diskeeper Corporation's InvisiTasking is that new technology that allows automatic defragmentation to truly be automatic. It's analogous to a kind of on-the-fly engine-attached device to replace only what oil is worn without affecting the engine in any way. InvisiTasking allows defragmentation to evolve from merely "scheduled" into "automatic".

You can now completely eliminate the concept (and bother) of scheduled maintenance all together; end result true AUTOMATIC maintenance, and the absolute least wear and tear possible on the engine (or hard drive), leading to a longer, more productive and reliable life. Sure, it takes a bit of getting used to as it is still a relatively new idea, but I'm confident when you give it thought you'll agree that it is an evolution of the decades old problem of how to go about solving the problems of poor file system performance.

Posted by Michael at 07:18 PM | Comments (3)

January 03, 2007

The latest on Diskeeper support for Vista

We are wrapping up a private (i.e. limited testers) field test to confirm all the new changes in the Windows Vista file system are properly accounted for.

The current time frame should make this product available in about 10-14 days. That puts the release around the US holiday of MLK day (January 15th).

When we get nearer to the release I'll write a blog entry to cover specifics as well as how to get the software.

Posted by Michael at 09:55 PM | Comments (11)

December 26, 2006

Undelete in 2007

It's been quite some time, if ever, that we've posted anything about Undelete. So, there's no time like the present.

The next major Undelete release is in the works. While, as usual, I can't divulge some of the cool new things planned for that version there are a couple of obvious updates that will occur. One feature is adding x64 support and the other is support for Windows Vista. With Vista being a workstation OS, and the x64 platform more of a benefit to high powered application systems (video editing, databases servers, etc...), we actually haven't had all that much demand for these two functions. Most of our Undelete customers are buying the Server Edition for their file servers (where it captures network deletions).

While it does well at what I call after-the-fact deletions, those are not its strengths. Undelete's real value is as a "file protection" product (prevents you from losing the file in the first place) and fits well into the Continuous Data Protection - for Files (known as CDP) category.

Because I brought up Vista, I should mention the file system in Vista once again. In an earlier blog, while talking about Diskeeper, I noted that Vista's NTFS has no significant changes (just a few minor ones) to the structure with respect to defragmentation -which is true. However, Vista's NTFS has introduced major changes for file filter applications like Undelete. The new feature is called TxF, an acronym for Transactional File System. I'll write another blog on TxF, and cover its functionality and discuss some of the findings our developers and I have learned while investigating it.

Posted by Michael at 05:57 PM | Comments (1)

December 04, 2006

Diskeeper Vista support is near release

A few select Diskeeper Corporation enterprise customers have received Diskeeper 2007 for Vista. The primary reason for the delayed release is due to subtle changes in the Master File Table (MFT). We've addressed these but are being very cautious and testing this heavily (bootime defragmentation). Microsoft also had to make a last minute fix to Vista (made in their RTM build) to address some issues that affected one of Diskeeper's advanced features.

I expect (can't promise yet) we should have a broad release for Vista available for download towards the end of December. As I mentioned before, it will be a free update to everyone on maintenance and everyone who has purchased/upgraded to Diskeeper 2007.

Posted by Michael at 06:14 PM | Comments (9)

November 21, 2006

Diskeeper x(4 score bits minus 2 bytes)

One of the frequent questions our staff are asked is whether Diskeeper for Windows x64 operating systems (AMD64/EM64T - CPUs) is native or compatible?

By compatible, that of course means it runs in 32 bit mode; native referring to it running in 64 bit mode.

Beginning with Diskeeper 10, the Professional editions (and above) have operated entirely in 64 bit mode. We recompiled the software and made the necessary edits to offer this to users running x64 operating systems. While unexpected, we did see some slight performance gains.

One of the perks of x64 architecture, as noted in wikipedia.com's x86-64 entry is: "very large files can be operated on by mapping the entire file into the process's address space (which is generally faster than working with file read/write calls), rather than having to map regions of the file into and out of the address space." If you're a avid video editor or engineer working with CAD/CAM 4GB+ files (not uncommon these days), you've likely been running Windows XP x64 for some time.

As Diskeeper 10 had a multiple component architecture, both the scheduling service (dkservice.exe) and the defragmentation engines (DfrgNTFS.exe and DfrgFAT.exe) ran in native 64 bit mode. In Diskeeper 2007 all operations are controlled directly under the Diskeeper Service (still called DKService.exe), and it too runs native x64.

When you download and extract the purchased software you'll notice right away that you receive two instances of Diskeeper. One installation program is for x86 and the other for x64. Each comes in an independently labeled folder. An autorun.exe program will properly select the install file to execute. If you have an x64 processor but a 32 bit Windows, you will need to install the 32 bit version of Diskeeper; the autorun program will handle that for you as well.

The same support in Diskeeper (Professional editions and above only) will be available for Vista x64 operating systems as well.

Posted by Michael at 07:49 AM | Comments (2)

November 08, 2006

The Mystery of the Disappearing MFT Reserved Zone!

The Master File Table (MFT) is perhaps the best known metadata file in an NTFS file system. Essentially it works as a "table of contents" for all the files on your volume describing attributes such as file name or the location of the file extents on a volume, and in some cases part of a file's data as well (in some cases, all of file's data). For every file, there exists at least one record (standard - 1KB in size) in the MFT for a file. When the attributes (e.g. data) of a file, an attribute could also mean the actual data itself (not just descriptors), could not fit in the 1KB record, it is written on the disk outside the MFT. These file attributes, typically the file's data, are known as non-resident attributes. Non-resident describes the fact that they do not reside wholly in the MFT (where resident attributes* define the exact opposite).

As more files are added to an NTFS volume, additional records are created within the MFT to define those files. As files are deleted from a volume the space they occupied in the Master File Table (the file's former record) is marked as available for use, but it is not deleted. Unlike some tools designed for databases or virtual disks, there is no tool or native action to shrink the MFT down to only the actual "in use" records. In essence this means the MFT can grow but will never shrink.

Microsoft file system developers thought ahead as they initially created the file system. They wanted to mitigate fragmentation of this key metadata file. They implemented an extension to this MFT file for future growth. The design they devised is known as the MFT reserved zone. It is a reserved area of free disk space located at the end of the currently allocated MFT space. As new records need to be created, the design was that they would expand into this reserved area, not randomly elsewhere on the disk, and hence not fragment the expanded MFT file.

Up through Windows 2000, this reserved area was relatively fixed, though in Win2K, you could edit the size. In most all cases the reserved zone would go unused and eventually allow for allocation of non-resident attributes as all other free space on a volume, other than the MFT reserved space, is filled up. If that occurred, the likelihood of the MFT fragmenting becomes almost a sure bet.

In Windows XP the behavior of the reserved zone changed. It went from being a hard coded percentage of the volume (default of 12.5%), to a dynamic extension called, by Microsoft, an "NTFS internal hint". While Diskeeper received information on this change early in XP's development, little data has been published on this from Microsoft. Given that we are talking about file system minutia that few care about or even need to be aware of, I can't blame them. I have attached the following as one of few sources from "the horse's mouth" on the subject.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/e/b/a/eba1050f-a31d-436b-9281-92cdfeae4b45/2kuptoXP.doc

That takes me, finally, to the purpose of this blog!

As I mention all too frequently, I frequent online technical forums and help out PC enthusiasts by sharing what I have come to learn or have researched about Window's file systems. I have noticed, in numerous forums, questions regarding the "disappearance of the reserved zone" on Windows XP clients.

Many users, possibly well familiar with Windows 2000 or adroitly attuned to XP over a period time, notice that the reserved space on XP volumes shrinks or disappears from views in a Diskeeper analysis (or that of the built-in defragmenter). While almost all note it has not affected their performance (it would not) there is understandably a concern as this is a change from what they are familiar with.

As empirical evidence presented by these users would suggest, it is not a performance issue, and is perfectly normal.

If you are curious as to the current size of this reserved zone on your NTFS volumes you can use fsutil.exe (file system utility), or for easier-to-read information (i.e. not in hexadecimal!), use NTFSinfo.exe from Microsoft Sysinternals
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/FileAndDisk/NtfsInfo.mspx

*Accessing resident attributes is much faster than accessing non-resident attributes. That is because the MFT record has to be accessed irregardless when accessing a file. If the request does not have to extend past the file record in the MFT to non-resident extents, that translates to less seek time (mapping extents) and disk head movement (retrieving data from the disk).

Posted by Michael at 03:50 AM | Comments (1)

November 04, 2006

Comparing I-FAAST

One of the topics that a reader requested to be covered in the Diskeeper blog was "what makes I-FAAST different than other file placement/sequencing strategies available on the market?" Don't let the title of this entry mislead you, as this blog entry is not intended to be a head-to-head/which-is-better comparison. I think that would be unprofessional, and it is obviously biased (hmmm... I wonder who I would pick?), so it would amount to nothing more than self-serving benchmarketing. I will also steer clear of making "assumptions" (for those familiar with the expression).

What I will do, is present facts - as I understand them, and let you make the decisions. I'm admittedly not the expert on the file ordering strategies other products use, so I suggest you confirm behavior/design with them. Diskeeper's number one competitor is the product we gave to Microsoft for inclusion into Windows back in the late 90's. The Diskeeper product has enjoyed market dominance akin to that of Microsoft's Windows OS in the desktop space. The biggest challenge we face is public education of what fragmentation is, and what it does to file system performance (like what many of you do probably regularly do for co-workers, friends, relatives, etc... about computers in general). Therefore, most of my knowledge is centered around Windows and Diskeeper and how they relate to performance (not what some other file system tool is doing). On that matter, there are many other numerous Windows file system experts, but very few others are expert on I-FAAST or Diskeeper, so please, if you ever have a question; just ask me!

For the record, I'm a very careful buyer, so I need proof that product claims are legitimate. For example, I never believe a car manufacturer's reported Miles-Per-Gallon estimates. Maybe I drive like a maniac, but my dear sweet old gradma apparently had more of a leadfoot than the drivers hired to gather those MPG numbers!

As I mentioned, while I do know I-FAAST, I'm also fairly well versed in NTFS. I'll present added depth on these topics and how they relate to the topic at hand.

As a prerequisite, I strongly suggest reading the following brief and relatively easy to read paper to better understand the file write behavior of NTFS: http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/HowFileFragmentationOccursonWindowsXP.pdf

You can watch a flash video of this document in the FAQ section of the Diskeeper Multimedia Tour in the chapter titled "How does fragmentation occur?". http://www.diskeeper.com/diskeeper/tour/index.html

The suggested reading/viewing will provide you the necessary background to better gauge the value of given file arrangement strategies.

It also very important to note that NTFS takes effort to write new iterations of a given file nearby its previous allocation. That's not directly covered in the above documents, but it is key when discussing file placement for the express purpose of reducing future fragmentation.

---

Placing files by modification or usage into certain logical regions of the volume is done by several vendors, including Diskeeper (based on frequency of use, not a file attribute). Claims, made by some vendors, that this minimizes future defragmentation time and effort as resources can be focused elsewhere are probably very valid. However, this brings up another point to mention - defrag algorithms need not rely on placing files logically on a volume to ignore unchanged data and concentrate on new fragmentation. That one vendor accomplishes this by moving files around doesn't mean another cannot do so without having to move files "out of the way". If speed of non-manual defragmentation is deemed important, does that suggest that whatever form of automation is offered must complete quickly to "get out of the way" because it interferes with system use? Ah, but I have digressed...

Pertaining to the positioning of free space into some geographic location; perhaps the craziest thing I've read about defragmentation strategy is that is that every file on a disk is moved around to defragment one file with an extent (fragment) located at the front of the disk, tightly packed in with other files, and another extent somewhere else in a pool of free space. A really, really, REALLY bad algorithm might do that, but I've yet to see one that ridiculous.

Now, with the understanding that new iterations of existing files are likely to be written near the original version of that same file, if all the files that change frequently are grouped together, that region on the disk would incur dramatic and constant file and free space fragmentation. I could then make the argument that because all the files that regularly change are intermingled, that all the "small" free spaces left behind by other changed files would be deemed "nearby" and therefore be even more likely to be considered best-fit free space candidates for a newly modified file (i.e a file that the defrag program deems frequently used). That is hypothetical, in the same way that placing a large chunk of free space near this region to reduce re-fragmentation is. The point is that I can make a reasonable argument why it might not work. I may well be wrong, but we do know that a defragmenter cannot control where the OS decides to write files. The proof is in the pudding, so ask the vendor for a test case, independent verification/analysis, etc...

Remember that files are written to disk via a write cache using a lazy write method. That cache can be flushed to the disk, either by filling up, or by forced command from the application writing the file. The lazy write will routinely, once per second, queue an amount of data to be written to disk, throttling the write operation when it is determined it may negatively affect performance. The write back cache with lazy write process allows for relatively consolidated and unobtrusive file writes, but consequentially can still create fragmentation. It is, and always has been, a trade-off.

Other blog entries on I-FAAST have described what I-FAAST is and how it works, so I won't duplicate that info here, but I will clear up a few other confusions I've heard about the technology. I-FAAST maintains consistency of the XP boot optimization zone (a technology Diskeeper co-developed with Microsoft). It also optimizes a large chunk of free space, adjacent to where the frequently accessed files reside, near the front of the volume. That free space chuck is specifically in a location so that new file writes can be accelerated. Note I use the word "can" as no defrag vendor can control or wholly predict the NTFS algorithms for new file writes. However, if the file being written is a modification of an existing file deemed frequently used (by I-FAAST), then there is an increased likelihood that it will be written in that free space segment and not towards the back of the volume. And not to beat a dead horse, but to claim that fragmentation of new file writes will be reduced, while possible to say (after all it might happen), is impossible to guarantee.

Arranging files alphabetically is another strategy. Read http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/HowNTFSreadsafile.pdf for a good overview of how NTFS accesses a file. If you want a good idea of what files Windows accesses in the boot up process, and in what relative order, open the layout.ini file on any XP system with any text editor. That should provide better insight.

The "last modified" file attribute is another best-guess approach. Given that the Indianapolis Colts of the NFL are undefeated 8 weeks into the season, I could make a reasonable assertion they will win the SuperBowl. You could certainly raise valid arguments to that assumption, and be very right. It's a guess based on some data, but is imperfect. Taking one data point - i.e. data that a file changed or was created or accessed recently, does not provide any reasonable indicator that it will change or be accessed again (e.g. many of the files associated with a Windows service pack). Perhaps the only benefit here is to move files that have not recently changed or been accessed elsewhere. But again, to what end? So that a future defrag can run quicker?

What about file strategy patents, you may ask? Simply because a product employs patented technology, does not guarantee it is valuable. It just means it does something unique. I could invent octagonal tires, but I don't think any but would want to drive to work with them :). Keep in mind that patents are published and available to read at places like uspto.gov or freepatentsonline.com - you should investigate it. You can find out when the patent was written (e.g. the 80's), and learn whether it was patented on the Windows NT platform, or if it was designed for the current version of NTFS (NTFS has changed dramatically since NT4)? You may also want to research that what is defined in the patent is still what is done in the product today? Is it still relevant? If the patent used the rote attribute of last accessed time, is that still the current design application? All are good points to investigate.

Cool-sounding theory captures buyer interest, but still has to proof itself in practice or it's relegated to an undelivered promise or some idea that should have stayed on a napkin. If a vendor makes a claim, ask them to provide tangible proof! It's your money, so I think that's a fair request?

And now for the differences:

Now let's give the benefit of the doubt and assume (ok I am making an assumption after all) that strategies that minimize future defragmentation run times work, and that future fragmentation is somehow mitigated, now what? Well, I-FAAST increases file access speed. That is very different than the expressed purpose(s) of other technologies, so you can't really compare them anyway. And remember that I-FAAST and Diskeeper's standard defragmentation run in RealTime, so they address fragmentation near-immediately (right after/soon after a file leaves memory). The standard real-time defragmentation is aware of I-FAAST file sequencing and will not undo its efforts.

You may hear that defrag is an I/O intensive process. While it is true that I/O activity must occur (in order to prevent excess I/O in the future to file fragments), that operation need not be intrusive. That is what InvisiTasking solves. While it addresses all major computer resources, it also absolves the interference of defrag overhead with respect to disk I/O. Yes, I-FAAST will move some files, but it does not shuffle them around regularly - it is an intelligent technology. Sequenced files are moved only if their usage frequency changes in relation to other data on the volume.

I-FAAST is one of the technologies that affords Diskeeper the ability to call itself more than a defragmenter, and raise the bar to a file system performance application. As I regularly mention, I-FAAST delivers what is promised, admittedly sometimes its only a few percent faster file access, but it is genuine. There are no best-guess efforts with this technology, it either works or it doesn't, and it tells you exactly what it will provide.

I'll end this blog with the comment, for the third time [I think I've made my point :)], that you should always go to the manufacturer/developer to learn more about how a technology works. The manufacturers are here to help you, and are the best resource to answer your questions. Hopefully I've provided some data that will help you make informed decisions about Diskeeper and things to look for when evaluating other technologies. I believe, as I stated before in a previous blog, that there are many good options on the market these days. Most any defragmenter is going to improve your computer's performance. Choosing a third party solution is likely to offer additional benefits/performance and reduced overhead (especially in a business network). It's up to you to determine what strategy is more valuable. It's great in our, mostly free-trade, world economy to have a choice. And, while I'm partial to Diskeeper, ultimately the decision rests with you - the customer. And, as I firmly believe, the customer is always right. You made, or will make, a decision for your own very valid reasons - whatever they may be.

Posted by Michael at 04:55 AM | Comments (4)

October 27, 2006

What Does Diskeeper Mean By "RealTime"?

With Diskeeper 2007's introduction of real-time file system performance, some understandable questions arise or are reborn.

Exactly how "Johnny on the spot" is Diskeeper about file fragmentation and free space consolidation? Or for that matter, I-FAAST file sequencing or directory consolidation? A concern might be defragmenting temporary files that won't hang around very long, and are likely be maintained in cache for their entire existence.

How about excess power consumption and resultant heat from being busy all the time?

What about wear and tear on the drives? Won't a regularly active process cause the drive to have to work more?

These are great questions!

Diskeeper is aware of these very valid concerns, and handles them intelligently.

By design, Diskeeper doesn't defragment "within seconds of fragmentation occurring". It knows enough to wait an appropriate amount of time. That wait state can vary (minutes to hours), and is also dependent on available resources. Defragmentation of files is top priority, followed shortly thereafter by free space consolidation, and then directory consolidation and I-FAAST sequencing.

Another valid concern is generation of heat from an active CPU(s) and hard drive and the power consumption to operate and cool those components. The key here is that Diskeeper is only handling issues that, left unhandled, will result in even greater effort for those components when they are really needed. An ounce of prevention... (you know the rest).

When you first install Diskeeper 2007 it may well chug away at your file systems, even if you recently defragmented with Diskeeper 10. What Diskeeper is doing is applying some of the new performance technologies (such as directory consolidation), that were not performed in v10. It's typical to see your CPU (and the Idle Resources graph on the Dashboard) be busy around 40% or so. You'll find that after a short while, after Diskeeper has optimized your computer, that the resources drop off to 1% or less, with only the occasional spike as it learns of, and fixes recently "acquired" file system degradation.

One of the urban myths about defragmentation is that it could wear out your hard drive. That of course, is the exact opposite of what actually occurs. In addition to improved performance, regularly defragmented drives live longer than drives that are not defragmented. That is because the amount of work they have to do is reduced. Defragmenting a file in 100 pieces requires 100 disk I/O actions one time and then only 1 disk I/O every time that file is accessed - until the end of time itself or you delete the file (whichever is sooner).

Let's do some math. We'll take a file that is in 100 extents (fragments) that we will access 100 times over the next few years.

Case #1: Defragmentation (total disk I/Os required):

100 I/Os (to defragment)
+ 1 I/O * 100 (for each future access of the file)
----------------------
= 200 total disk I/Os

Case #2: No Defragmentation:

0 I/Os (to defragment - which we are NOT doing)
+ 100 I/Os (to access all the fragments) * 100 (for each future access of the file)
----------------------
= 10,000 total disk I/Os - aye caramba!

Note that the above is a simplification of the I/O activity to defragment or access a file - but it is a workable example. One thing Diskeeper continues to pioneer is the amount of total I/O generated to defragment a file. It generates far less I/O overhead than other technologies.

If Diskeeper were to needlessly shuffle files around all day, every day, all the above discussions would be moot. Power would be over consumed, drives would wear out too quickly, etc... However, Diskeeper does only what is needed to improve the performance of your file system - and no more. That design principle has always been at the core of what Diskeeper is all about, and it holds true with RealTime defragmentation just as it did with multi-pass defragmentation. The new benefit is now there is no waiting for peak performance - it just happens!

Posted by Michael at 05:22 AM | Comments (5)

October 26, 2006

InvisiTasking and BOINC

If you're reading this blog you probably have a good idea of what InvisiTasking is and what it does already. If not, you can read some of the earlier blogs on that subject for review, or check out an interview I did on Let's Talk Computers (http://www.letstalkcomputers.com/guests/diskeeper/invisitask/index.htm) or Computer Outlook (http://www.computeroutlook.com/dailyshows.php). BOINC is an acronym for Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (http://boinc.berkeley.edu/).

While the two technologies are very different in their application, they do share the same principle. Both seek to leverage under-utilized computing power to do something positive.

BOINC is the backbone of numerous science research projects (a popular one is the SETI@home project). The key difference is that BOINC is a grid computing application (distributed computing). It uses wasted resources from an unlimited number of PCs across the internet (volunteer computing). It also offers distributed computing within a company network. InvisiTasking is a closed, single computer technology that does not communicate outside the computer and acts as the backbone of Diskeeper 2007. InvisiTasking is designed specifically for enterprise organizations, with a design focus on transparency of operation for applications used for business/security/productivity on a given computer. In short, they have different infrastructures and purposes.

BOINC also allows a system to run multiple BOINC-based applications concomitantly. InvisiTasking, for it's part, will behave similarly when other programs are built on that technology. Just as BOINC supports the SETI@home project as well as a project to aid in climate prediction, InvisiTasking will support simultaneous real-time defragmentation and, perhaps, a real-time anti-malware scan or file backup or database performance script.

For those, like myself, who contributed to the SETI@home project over the past years (there were 5.4 million volunteers), you knew that it used to run when your screen saver was initiated, much like a popular old Diskeeper feature. The brilliant folks on the BOINC project evolved their technology in parallel (though completely unrelated) with our brilliant R&D team here. The primary reason we evolved our older methodologies into InvisiTasking, is likely the same reason BOINC was introduced - to take better advantage of wasted resources -something screen saver mode was not effective enough at solving.

One thing we became aware of, in field testing, was that InvisiTasking was so resource sensitive that systems running BOINC applications took priority over Diskeeper's defragmentation. However, you don't need to choose between practical benefit for your computer and doing good for mankind.

If you are running SETI@hone or other BOINC applications, you'll want to make adjustments. There are two ways to tweak your computer to allow both programs to run harmoniously. The easiest (recommended) option is to alter BOINC. You can choose to operate as either a "Single User" or "Shared" rather than "As a Service" - and still use screensaver mode. If you do run it as a Service, you can edit your preferences to cap resources usage. BOINC also has a "snooze" button.

The other option (not recommended) is to make changes that alter InvisiTasking's behavior. If you do this, you are de-sensitizing InvisiTasking, so we recommend that you may want to consider disabling Diskeeper during certain periods using the graphical Automatic Defragmentation Timeline control. If you are a customer, Tech Support can advise you on this. Our FAQs may also include this information in the future.

Posted by Michael at 08:55 PM | Comments (5)

October 25, 2006

What do you want to see on the Diskeeper Blog?

Recently I've been active on numerous tech forums, helping out Diskeeper users and providing technical assistance or just general info on how the file system and OS work. It's giving me some good ideas for future blogs, but I'd really like to hear from everyone reading this blog what subjects you would like to see covered here.

As much as I like to hear myself talk ;-), I want to cover things you actually care to read. I want this site to provide benefit. Please think of it as a resource to help you out or provide you info you may not be able to get anywhere else.

I ask only that any subjects you suggest be loosely relevant to the technologies Diskeeper Corporation is involved with. On those subjects I can speak with, at least, a modicum of intelligence :-). Your request doesn't have to be on technical subjects. If you want to know more about the company itself - ask away.

Let us know what you'd like to see covered here! Please note that I may not post your comments until I get around to answering them in full.

Posted by Michael at 06:51 AM | Comments (9)

October 19, 2006

Diskeeper 2007 will offer a free update to support Vista

We've had a number of questions on this:

When Diskeeper 2007 officially supports Vista (a few weeks away), the update build will be free to anyone who owns Diskeeper 2007.

Posted by Michael at 07:52 PM | Comments (8)

October 17, 2006

Just install it and let 'er rip! - Diskeeper 2007 is now available!

What best describes Diskeeper 2007?

I think beta tester Michael Ratledge (an IT security pro) said it best - "Just install it and let 'er rip!"

Diskeeper 2007 does what an automatic defragmenter should do. It defragments files on-the-fly without any impact on the system. Powered by new InvisiTasking technology, Diskeeper is the only technology that can truly deliver transparent operations.

Whether you are running a mission critical 24/7 enterprise server, or the latest graphics-intensive game, Diskeeper 2007 intelligently uses only unused system resources (if and when they are available). InvisiTasking goes far beyond the limitations of I/O and CPU throttling. There's simply no comparison.

What does that mean?

It means no more need to turn off your defragmenter, schedule at "off" hours, or manual defrag when you have a few minutes. And, Diskeeper 2007 is simple for the user - no need to figure out "settings" or what "type" of defragmentation is best for your system. Diskeeper does it for you, intelligently and dynamically determining what your system needs for peak file system performance!

Check out our product pages at diskeeper.com for more info, then download the trialware and take 'er for a spin!

Posted by Michael at 07:23 PM | Comments (32)

October 14, 2006

Invisible Software?

Below is the first part of a white paper on an amazing new technology our R&D team invented. We have big plans for this technology. I'd like to hear other venues where you think this technology could help? What programs are you running that could leverage this?

BTW: This report is a general overview of technologies in order to provide a better understanding of certain limitations inherent in modern operating systems. It is not a scientific study.

---

BACKGROUND MULTITASKING

OVERVIEW

Multitasking is a method for sharing system resources so that multiple processes can appear to run simultaneously. An example would be the ability to run both a word editor and a spreadsheet application at the same time.

However, a component in a general purpose computer, such as the CPU, can only execute one task at a given time. Multitasking presents the illusion that all execution is occurring simultaneously by implementation of a thread scheduling system. It is in essence virtualization of the CPU, designed to fool applications into believing they own the CPU exclusively. More powerful and faster CPUs can execute larger tasks or execute more in a given span of time.

Multiprocessing extends the principles of multitasking to multiple CPUs, actually allowing threads to run simultaneously, where multitasking only feigns this behavior. Multiprocessing, like multitasking, is still limited in processing capacity to one action at a time on a given CPU.

For the purposes of this paper, multitasking will be used to refer to the operating system's thread handling.

Inside Multitasking:

There are a variety of Multitasking techniques in use in operating systems today. Modern computer systems such as Windows, Linux, UNIX and Mac OS X use a form of multitasking called preemptive multitasking with varying unique differences. Pre-emptive multitasking is a more effective mechanism to guarantee resource sharing as it differentiates processes (e.g. I/O or CPU) and integrates I/O waiting so as to not delay processes that do not need I/O device responses (such as data returned from a hard drive).

Window's application of preemptive scheduling, while not a pure form, is more advanced, when compared to earlier MS-DOS based versions of Windows, in that it better separates processes by the resources they use (e.g. CPU intensive versus I/O bound). Of key importance is that it also allows processes to be prioritized. Prioritization involves implementing a system by which one process, and its associated threads, can be deemed to be more, equally, or less important than another process. An essentially "round-robin" scheduling system then assigns resource time-slices available to the active processes.

However, the prioritization value system is relatively rote in that it relies on the process to generally define how important it is. It also applies a numeric value system (values of 0-31) in which a higher number indicates greater importance. A process with a value of 8 will receive greater resource access than a process with a priority valu