Anyway I’ve been using Diskeeper 9 (not 2009) for ages but recently after upgrading from XP-SP2 to XP-SP3 I get constant error messages so I tried both (Diskeeper 2k9 + PerfectDisk) and PerfectDisk wins in my book. Why? You can set it to defrag when the screensaver is active! Diskeeper got rid of that feature in their new releases and now they only allow this “auto background defragging”. Oh my god what a pain in the rear that thing can be as it goes off at the dumbest moments, especially when gaming. That’s an issue Diskeeper absolutely has to look into.

Updated installation instructions can be found at http://www.perfectdisk.com/support/kb/804. Please note that the new installation method is only for PerfectDisk 10 Build 110 or newer.

To enable StealthPatrol automatic background defragmentation, the user selects the AutoPilot Scheduling tab, then the StealthPatrol tab, and a quick Wizard guides you through setting it up. It is also described in more detail in the Help file (under Product Resources tab).

While I appreciate your analogy in your capitalequipment market, it is not the same. As a matter of fact, one of the advantages we have particularly in the enterprise space is that we DO offer both options — a schedule or automatic background defrag). Sometimes companies will use continuous modes for some systems, but do not allow that mode, for example, for mission-critical servers…they require a schedule. The point is, the user can use either a schedule or a continuous background method.

We have millions of users utilizing StealthPatrol, but I will take your word for it that we have a confusing feature description and see if we can improve it.

I apprecite and understand that you like both products. We always encourage people to try out and compare as well.

Thanks,
Joe

Originally Posted By Joe Abusamra
Hi Sasha,

YOu are correct – actually, we also had our own price incorrect, listing it more than 7 times what it actually is. My reply to the deceptive remark was that statement that PerfectDisk does not do automatic background defragmenting and saying that by stating so we are trying to deceive. PerfectDisk does do automatic background defragmentation, so I was not sure (and still not) why the author came out saying we did.

Thanks,
Joe

Perhaps in lieu of “deceptive marketing”, I should have used “confusing feature description”.

As an example, I work in the pharmaceutical capital equipment market. There are 2 types of processing equipment for various aspects of this industry, batch and continuous. They are opposites, and when one attempts to use them together (continuous batch coater), there is a certain level of confusion. A coating machine is either a batch coater or a continuous coater. They cannot be the same.

The same is true of “scheduled” and “continuous”. A product is one or the other, not both. Perhaps it is not obvious to me, but everything I saw in PerfectDisk (including the StealthPatrol feature) was based on scheduled defragmentation times. Yes, StealthPatrol works in the background during those schedules times. “Schedule” does not equal “continuous”.

Perhaps I missed something here. But I never saw an option that positively stated “continuous background defragmentation”. As in not scheduled.

If you can enlighten me (and the WGS readers) on how to find and turn on this feature, I would love to hear about it.

And as I have stated previously, both PerfectDisk and Diskeeper are very fine programs that do the job. As in most competing products, a user chooses one over the other based on the feature set one desires or feels most comfortable with. And cost, obviously, which is where PD has a very distinct advantage.

YOu are correct – actually, we also had our own price incorrect, listing it more than 7 times what it actually is. My reply to the deceptive remark was that statement that PerfectDisk does not do automatic background defragmenting and saying that by stating so we are trying to deceive. PerfectDisk does do automatic background defragmentation, so I was not sure (and still not) why the author came out saying we did.

Thanks,
Joe

Like many of the responders at the WHS forum, I am unable to comment on the very technical aspects of the thread. My comments, tho:

1. This thread was started prior to the changes introduced in PP1. I will have to *assume* that some of the issues documented here were addressed.
2. Both Diskeeper and Perfectdisk have released new versions since the last post in this thread. Again, I will have to *assume* that the issues documented here were addressed further.
3. Regarding Ken’s last comment, I do have to agree that a “typical” may not see much of an increase in performance. I would have to guess that he means “typical” workstations. Servers are not a “typical” computer/OS, however. WHS falls into this category. As servers quite often get hammered with new files, files being deleted, many users, etc., performance gains due to decreased HD thrashing would seem to me to be beneficial.
4. The first time I installed one of these programs, file defragmentation was over 50%. That is what I would consider serious.
5. I have had both programs installed over extended lengths of time. Both performed flawlessly. Both programs currently indicate defrag levels of <1%.

In the end, I would not hesitate the use of either program. Both do the same job in different ways. The end result is the same: they work quite well. As such, cost and features are the main things to look for if you are considering a program like this. The one thing I know is that disk performance will degrade over time. Whether a user will notice the change is always a subject for debate.

The same could be said for other performance changes, i.e., overclocking. A real increase in performance or an artificial increase?

1. Defragging can be accomplished safely.
2. Defragging WHS disksets has positive consequences.

Perhaps the author might comment on this:

http://social.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/whssoftware/thread/67a19ef5-8da4-4070-8c7c-b0c5b902cd03/#page:1

It is unclear to me that the present WHS disk/data structuring has changed much from the timeframe of the discussion in the MS forum referenced above.

What came out in that discussion was (be sure to read it all) there’s really no need to defrag a WHS setup – indeed, one could possibly mess things up by doing so.

I do not like deceptive marketing either, and we do not play that game. StealthPatrol DOES do true continuous background defrag, and also has more intelligence built in.. Why do you not think it does so? Since you preface your statement with “perhaps I’m wrong,” I think you have an obligation to do a bit more investigating before making accusations of deceptive marketing. I have another test for you — run both programs in extremely low free space conditions, check the conditions afterward, and you might have a different opinion of deceptive marketing.

Thanks,
Joe

A big plus for PD.

Originally Posted By 1JohnBick
PerfectDisk 10 also allows defragmenting in the background, as I recall, allowing the program to run only when the system is idle. I believe it is called “StealthPatrol”. Since PerfectDisk beat Diskkeeper in every respect except when Diskkeeper was running in a similar mode, I believe this should be evaluated for a fair comparison.

Other than that (rather significant) point I think your comparison was excellent and useful. But without it the comparison is misleading.

This whole concept of StealthPatrol is the biggest negative against PerfectDisk. From the PD website: “StealthPatrol feature lets you set up a defrag schedule that works with your busy life. Schedule defragmentation of your Windows Home Server to run seamlessly in the background only during system idle times.”

Based upon that quote, it defrags in the background during it’s normal defrag schedule. This is not the *true* continuous background defrag feature that DK has. Negative in that PD promotes this concept to combat DK. Perhaps I am wrong, but I certainly do not find ANYTHING related to StealthPatrol being a true continuous background feature.

I do not like deceptive marketing.

I do have to admit that PD wins in many areas, but since the method a defragging a drive is so different with each program, it became apparent that an apples-to-apple defrag comparison was not feasible.