UltraDefrag - An open source defrag alternative
I was surfing along the other day looking for a replacement defragmentation utility for the built in one that comes with Windows XP and happened to stumble upon UltraDefrag. Personally, I don’t like the Windows XP utility because it has a tendency to skip over some fragmented files for no good reason. I’ve also been weary of the fact that the Windows utility can’t be run under Safe Mode (well at least it never seems to work for me – I know it works for some people).
Over the years I’ve tried the defrag utility that came with Norton SystemWorks and Vopt8, just to name the first two that come to mind but neither one of them seemed to work as good as UltraDefrag and they cost money.
I decided to download it and give it a try. Here is what I liked.
First off, there are four versions: i386, AMD64, IA64 and EM64T. This makes it available on most Windows friendly architectures. I’m using the i386 version because I’m currently running Windows XP 32bit on my of my systems.
Secondly, the program is open source. That means that you can download it for free and even modify the code if you so desire.
Finally, It’s quite feature rich. See below for a small example of the features .
- Very fast defragmentation, the work is done via a kernel mode driver which has an optimal defraging algorithm.
- Very small engine written in pure C.
- Nice graphical interface - compact and functional.
- Safety, because the file moving is accomplished with Microsoft’s own Defrag API.
- Simple to use.
- Ability to generate html reports of fragmentation status.
- Ability to include/exclude files based on simple filters.
- Native x64 support.
- Free: Distributed with full source code under the GNU General Public License.
I’ve spent the last two days defraging with this utility and it works well. It hasn’t crashed on me yet and it appears to get some of the files that Windows defrag missed. You can also set it to run when Windows first boots so you can snag those bulky system files and defrag them. That’s another thing that Windows defrag doesn’t do.
Here are a couple screen shots of the program to give you an idea of what it looks like. I have to say it does have an “old school” look but I happen to like it that way. That’s just the nerd in me coming out I guess.
If you want to download UltraDefrag click here to get to their home page.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Are you Dmitri Arkhangelski, or Justin Dearing?
February 12th, 2008 at 11:44 am
No I am not. They can be found on the UltraDefrag home page at http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/.
My name is Dennis
Cheers!
February 19th, 2008 at 4:06 am
Version 1.3.0 traps OS during analyze phase. Unstable at this moment, I think.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:28 am
I have 1.3 installed on 4 computers and haven’t run into that yet. They are all running the 32bit version.
What version are you using (32 or 64bit)? You might want to file a bug report on their sourceforge page.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Here’s the correct link to download ultra defrag.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ultradefrag/
February 25th, 2008 at 6:30 am
The “built-in” defragmenter in Windows XP was written by Executive Software, the people who make Diskeeper. As one might expect, 1) the version they wrote to be included with Windows is considerably stripped, and 2) Diskeeper has been much improved since the version “built in” to WinXP was written– in particular, it is much more thorough now, and seldom skips fragmented files.
The more “advanced” versions of Diskeeper come with a hefty price tag (eg. Dk 2008 Pro Premier, which is currently at $100), which makes a freeware solution very appealing. However, I would want any defragmenter to have some of the advanced features that Diskeeper offers. In particular, does UltraDefrag:
at least defragment the MFT and paging files (this is the most crucial feature in a defragmenter for the NTFS file system)?
allocate space for the MFT to grow into, and set an adequate page file size (Diskeeper Frag Shield) so that these crucial system files do not become fragmented in the first place?
defragment directories, and collect them together near the beginning of the disk?
track file usage patterns, and sort files based on this data for faster access times (Diskeeper I-FAAST, Norton Speedisk)?
detect I/O activity and system resource usage, and throttle itself back when the system is busy (Diskeeper I/O Smart)?
February 25th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“at least defragment the MFT and paging files (this is the most crucial feature in a defragmenter for the NTFS file system)?”
AFAIK it does. At least it shows the size of MFT and there is the option to run at boot time so I’m guessing that’s what it does there.
“defragment directories, and collect them together near the beginning of the disk?”
You can click on the compact button and it will move the files/folders towards the beginning of the drive.
“detect I/O activity and system resource usage, and throttle itself back when the system is busy (Diskeeper I/O Smart)?”
There’s no option for that and for me that’s not important because I normally set it to defrag at a time I’m not using it.
As for the rest I really am not sure. You might want to ask the folks who write it.
Cheers!
February 25th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Actually, if you check out the screen shot of the “about” page you will see some info about FAT volumes and system files.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
nerd, u must be Dmitri Arkhangelski, or Justin Dearing… hehehee
i have tested that app on different machines for a while now and i just dont think it does the work so well. i analyzed the volumen and read the fragments.. i defrag and compacted and boot timed .. in short: i did the whole improvement package. after the restart analyzed the volume again and it showed just a little less fragmentation then at beginning. for ex. before frag: 380 files after: 320.. on some machines it defraged more but never it was at 0. all pc’s were newly reloaded with windows and no additional SW other then the drivers.
i did used windows defrag after that and it looked like it compacted the volumen better then udefrag. im not sure if that udefrag is very accurate in analyzing the drive.
i think vopt8 does a much better job and faster also it has more features whether u need it or not. i hope udefrag will improve more as i also think it does have some issues running on different configurations.
btw. about winDefrag and vopt. if some files are skipped but lets say 90% still getting defraged would that realy matter? coz as soon as u finished defrag and start working with windows the disk get fragmented again slowly but surely.. chances also are that those skipped files gettin defraged next time. and i dont think that u need to compare the superduper diskeeper package to this small app. that would be in no relation to a standart home or office pc normal use apps. it gets more useful on a Server. and this udefrag would be just perfect if its just a bit better…
March 12th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Dr.J,
Ultradefrag works great for me as an open source solution on servers and workstations. I have had zero issues with it.
It is anoying to me that you keep saying the guy who wrote the article is Dmitri Arkhangelski or Justin Dearing. I notice he didn’t bother replying to you’re second rant.
1.) The article was titled ‘UltraDefrag - An open source defrag alternative.’ Not ‘Comparing open and closed source defragmentation utilities’.
2.) Please learn to use grammar and spell correctly. There are close to 7 billion people in the world, and roughly half of them use English as a first or second language. Using free-form spelling and grammar distances you from that population. (Plus it makes you sound stupid.)
March 13th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Thanks Lo Wang
March 14th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Lo Wang, be nice. You spelled “anoying” wrong, used the wrong form of “you’re”, and used two different orders of a closing apostrophe and period in section 1.)
March 15th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Ultradefrag is at 1.3.4, the previous version I used was 1.2.4, and I missed the in between version.
I don’t have problems with 1.3.4
For those with problems, try the 1.3.4.
There is also another good disk defragger which is closed source, but free without “phone home” or “load ads from the internet” function which gives good results:
http://www.auslogics.com/en/software/disk-defrag
It does a more simple “just make the files contiguous” approach and gets most of the “in use by system” files too. It finishes very quicky on regular defragmented drives.
Greetings from Germany!
March 25th, 2008 at 4:15 am
There is ANOTHER open source alternative, JKDefrag.
I’ve used and it should be quite stable. At the moment it is at release 3.34 and can be found here:
http://www.kessels.com/JkDefrag/
However, I’ve never found a clear proof that any of the Open-Source/Free defrag utility can really speed up the disk.
I don’t know any efficient way to compare “performances” and especially “results” of these utility with windows defrag.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:29 am
BTW, the most popular free defrag program (with GUI)are:
UltraDefrag (opensource)
JKDefrag (opensource, standalone)
IObit Smartdefrag (beta, freeware)
Auslogic DiskDefrag (freeware)
Defraggler (beta, freeware)
Contig (with PowerDefrag gui, freeware standalone)
A more detailed list about free defrag utility with short description can be found here:
http://www.xtort.net/system-utilities/defrag/
March 25th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Thanks for the info Ed. I’m going to try and review some more defrag programs in the future.
April 26th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
you guys are arguing about spelling?!?!? god people are dumb, LMAO!!!!
June 16th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I noticed that recent versions install themselves into “Windows” directory. Anyone out there who can give me a short answer about why this is so, rather than Program Files as before?
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 am
I noticed that as well but have no idea why. That’s actually not a good thing. Programs files should use the %PROGRAMFILES% variable to install themselves in the proper directory.
You might want to contact the guys who write the program or post a message on their forums on Sourceforge.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Interesting discussion! FWIW, I have a commercial (i.e. not free) defragmenter installed on my workstation at the lab, and it greatly simplifies the defragging process. It oversees and defrags all four drives automatically in the background whenever necessary..usually for a few minutes a day..and without any intervention on my part. Random checks at the end of the day indicate that fragmentation is minimal at any given time, despite heavy file activity during the day, so it’s very effective. Since I don’t have to waste time defragging the drives or leaving on the workstation for the night, it saves me time and some money too.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Long time PD user just dumped PD 2008 for UD as it made a big improvement on my XP 64 system with dual 500GB in RAID. Files open faster, apps do, even FF. Boot speed has increased. What more can one ask for.
July 27th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I think you guys at Open Source rock!!!