Piriform Defraggler must have an option of defragging multiple disks at a time

[Raj Desai]

I have bought a new computer system with 4 internal hard drives and 2 external hard drives, in total they are almost 6 TB of storage. If I try to defragment them, it takes a huge amount of time if try to do it individually. The work would be easier if they introduce an option to defrag multiple disks simultaneously at a time.

I would really love to request them to introduce this option, so as to reduce our efforts and make things easier. What about you people, do u agree with me?

[Gania]

I guess the defraggler does not completely works on physical drives as it works on the partition which contains file system.

Defraggler allows us to choose the partitions to defrag, but I nowhere see any indication of which the physical drive hold them. I personally believe that it would be taking more time to defrag on one physical drive simultaneously. Unless windows API get confused, defragging one partition simultaneously on each of the multiple physical drives may be feasible.

It’s a positive option to defrag different physical disks simultaneously, for e.g. SATA drive and an USB drive. Performing 4 to 5 disk defrags at a time in a sequence is much slower than do those in simultaneously.

[Abhiroopa]

I do not like this suggestion, I do not find any point in having the option of defragmenting on the same drive but I would agree if there are multiple physical drives are defragged concurrently. High fragmentation on slow drives may possibly last forever and also the fast ones may be already be completed in the mean time. And also if the fragment starts with the slow disk then surely others will have to wait in the queue till the slow ones complete the process.

[Erakna]

I guess the complete effect of it would be faster through more and more complete use of the bandwidth.
For example, if a drive 1 is sent to the process and if it has to wait, then definitely this would mean that either there is a stop or chunks in the bandwidth. This would result in the incomplete saturation of the data channel.

And if Drive 2 and 3 are added in the lot then all the three of them is processed at a time and just because of the processor tries to reserve time slot slices to be available for other applications. Therefore this takes the benefit of this fact and fully saturates the data channels.

[Bontu]

I guess it’s already possible. I have not noticed it because the way I have done it was with one fully defragged drive and the other one that was not fully defragged. Actually the first one was finished so early and quickly that I thought both were done at that time. But later on when checked; only the first one was done and the other one was not.

While one disk spend time and wait for the data to be processed and then few more time to send data and then receive data, the other drive would be sending and receiving on the wait cycle. This is actually the most convenient use of the data channel and it has the net effect of being faster. The data is actually flowing continuously with the other drives to the bunch and then the wait cycle is utilized for the other drives.