디스크키퍼(Diskeeper) vs 퍼펙트 디스크(Perfect Disk)
조각모음계의 쌍벽을 이루는 Diskeeper는 성능이 어떨까 검색하던 중 다음과 같은 자료를 발견했다.
Recently, I reviewed the 2 kings of Disk Defragmentation software for Windows Home Servers: Diskeeper 2009 and PerfectDisk 10. These 2 programs are hot off the presses with new releases. Diskeeper in December 2008 and PerfectDisk in January 2009. I felt it was important to have these reviews focus on the individual programs including installation, user interface, and performance.
It is now time to see how they fare in a direct comparison of these aforementioned areas.
Installation:
There really is not much to say about installation. Both programs installed in about the same way. A necessary, but mundane, task to do for any program. Differences?
Diskeeper installed the necessary files automatically for installation in the console, PerfectDisk required me to copy the required folders to be appropriate location.
PerfectDisk installs the add-in outside the console, thus the console did not have to close after the add-in was installed. Diskeeper installs in the normal add-in manner, thus requiring a console restart.
Other than that, read through my individual reviews on the specific installation steps.
Winner:
Diskeeper by a nose, simply because it installed the program files where needed. PerfectDisk relied on the user to copy folders.
User Interface:
Diskeeper
Diskeeper groups the the program features into three distinct windows. They are well laid out and quite easy to navigate. Hovering over the icons along the top row opens up an associated tool tip, which is quite nice to help familiarize yourself with the various features in the beginning. Clicking on these icons opens a new window over the main console window. Kind of a cross between an all-console add-in and the desktop version.
This does allow Diskeeper to present more information than is possible if one has to maintain everything inside the console window.
PerfectDisk
PerfectDisk has grouped the various program features under 4 tabs located across the top of the program window. The first tab is named ‘Defragmentation’, and can seen in the following picture. This is where you can analyze, manually defragment, and view the properties of the various system drives. You can also set the various program options under this tab.
Overall, the layout of the console version of PerfectDisk is quite easy to navigate without being overwhelmed by trying to put too much information in front of you at one time. The one item that I feel needs to be rethought is the drive selection area under the ‘Defragmentation’ window. Inside the console, you have the ability to see only one or two drives listed at a time. In addition, the drive naming scheme is rather cryptic, which translates to not easily knowing which physical one is looking at. It would be nice to expand this section, at the expense of the graphical disk section, to show 3-4 drives at a time.
Please note that if you RDC to your WHS and open the main PerfectDisk program to the desktop, the increased space available to the program allows you to see more than what is in the console window. For many programs, it is quite a challenge to effectively place information in the limited space inside the console. For the most part, PerfectDisk does a nice job of this. In addition, you can have both the console version and the desktop version of PerfectDisk open at the same time.
Winner:
PerfectDisk, by a hair. This is quite subjective, but I simply like the interface better. PerfectDisk had a few glitches in the interface which Diskeeper did not have, so that is a plus for Diskeeper. In the end, I simply felt that PerfectDisk did a better job of placing the information in front of me.
For others, the layout of Diskeeper may be preferred. Like I said, this is quite subjective.
Performance:
Once installed, both programs are basically a set-and-forget program. As a result, the only thing that really matters in the end is how well do they work and how do they affect normal computer operations. The most pertinent tests that provided real-world tests (and one artificial test) that would affect normal computer operations for a WHS are as follows:
Client Backup: I ran a Manual Backup of my workstation. I followed this backup immediately another backup. I then ran a third backup while the defragmentation program was performing a defragmentation run.
Performance benchmark test:
I ran HD Tach on my system drive. With each program, I ran HD Tach three times, as I have found from previous tests that results can vary somewhat from test to test.
Artificial Torture Test:
I copied a single .VOB file (1,048,574 KB in size) over to an empty, unattached, drive on my WHS.
This drive is a WD1600JS 160 GB drive, as seen below. As can also be seen, this drive is attached directly to a SATA port on the motherboard.
I then ran a program that shotgun blasted this file all over the drive. I ran this program for a total of four hours.
The results are as follows.
Diskeeper
Client Backup: I ran a Manual Backup of this machine. I followed this backup immediately with another backup. I then ran a third backup while Diskeeper was performing a defragmentation run.
Run 2, Diskeeper not defragmenting:
Run 3, Diskeeper performing a defragmentation run:
Performance benchmark test:
With Diskeeper not defragmenting (and the background defragmentation feature of Diskeeper turned off):
With Diskeeper performing a manual defragmentation run on my system drive (and the background defragmentation feature of Diskeeper turned off):
With the background defragmentation feature of Diskeeper running:
Artificial Torture Test:
The following pictures provides a summary snapshot of the drive after running the fragging program.
Within a minute or so, Diskeeper had completed drive optimization, which gave me the following report of drive statistics.
There was very minimal improvement in fragmentation levels. I turned on the Boot Time defragmentation option, restarted the WHS computer and let Diskeeper perform this operation. The result was a very slight improvement in fragmentation levels. I performed a few more manual and Boot Time operations and the result was slight improvements each time. At this point, I turned on Automatic Defragmentation option to see what would happen. The result:
Total success! As noted below, manual defragging is not a through or effective defragging method in Diskeeper.
PerfectDisk
Client Backup: I ran a Manual Backup of this machine. I followed this backup immediately with another backup. I then ran a third backup while PerfectDisk was performing a defragmentation run.
Run 2, PerfectDisk not defragmenting:
Run 3, PerfectDisk performing a defragmentation run:
Performance benchmark test:
With PerfectDisk not defragmenting:
With PerfectDisk performing a defragmentation run on my system drive:
Artificial Torture Test:
The following picture provides a summary snapshot of the drive after running the fragging program.
While the following picture gives you a visual view of how the drive looked just after I started to defragment it.
20 minutes later, PerfectDisk had completed drive optimization, which gave me the following report of drive statistics.
Performance benchmark test results:
Client Backup:
Diskeeper: 27% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
PerfectDisk: 3% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
Performance benchmark test:
Burst Speed:
Diskeeper: 22.5% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
Diskeeper: 0% penalty running with the background defragmentation feature running
PerfectDisk: 3% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
Random Access:
Diskeeper: 49% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
Diskeeper: 0% penalty running with the background defragmentation feature running
PerfectDisk: 41% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
Average Read:
Diskeeper: 716% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
Diskeeper: 1% penalty running with the background defragmentation feature running
PerfectDisk: 267% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
Artificial Torture Test:
Diskeeper: A combination of manual and boot time defragmentation runs did not defragment the file. Turning on background defragmentation defragmented the file in approximately an hour.
PerfectDisk: A manual defragmentation run defragmented the file in approximately 20 minutes.
Winner:
At first glance, it would appear that PerfectDisk wins hands down over Diskeeper. This is where one must understand that the 2 programs take quite different approaches on how to defragment a drive. PerfectDisk performs defragmentation on scheduled runs while Diskeeper is optimized to defragment drives in the background. Which is the reason I ran the HD Tach tests on Diskeeper both ways.
With Diskeeper, using background defragmentation methods, any performance differences between the programs are quickly minimized.
The winner: A toss up, simply because the 2 programs do the same function in such different manners. It simply becomes quite difficult to directly compare performance numbers.
Overall Winner:
Based on Installation and Interface, both programs edge each other out slightly. Installation may seem trivial, but if a program will not install, its value becomes zero. Interface is always an important feature, but one must remember that a defragmentation program is not something you look at very often. Once you have set the program features to your requirements, you may never look at the program again.
When looking at a product, cost is a major factor in the decision making process. Diskeeper will set you back $70 while PerfectDisk will set you back $50. PerfectDisk wins easily on cost.
Both programs do an outstanding job in maintaining your hard drives and keeping them running at optimal performance levels. So which one wins here? Both (or neither).
And finally, the overall winner? This may surprise you, but in my book the overall winner is:
Both! PerfectDisk wins on price, and performance when using traditional defragmentation methods. Diskeeper wins on the innovative use of its continuous background defragging feature, which makes it a true install-and-forget program. Using background defragmentation methods, any performance differences between the programs are quickly minimized.
In the end, it all depends on which of the features noted above is most important to you. You simply cannot go wrong with either program.
Perfect Disk 는 가격과 매뉴얼 Defragmentation 에서 Diskeeper에서 나은 성능을 보였고
Diskeeper는 백그라운드에서 거의 리소스를 차지하지 않았다고 한다.
결국 그냥 둘다 위너란다. ^^ 흐흐
댓글