DiskWarrior 3 or TechTool Pro 4

[Jacques]

Which do you like best, if you had to choose one over the other..

DiskWarrior 3 or TechTool Pro 4?

---

Comments welcome!

[Phil St. Romain]

I've had good experience with Disk Warrior, but have recently purchased TT. I like the emergency disk image it creates, and how you can add other utilities to it. So at this time, I've got DW in my TT emergency disk image, along with a few other utilities.

[Norm Nager]

Quote: Originally posted by Phil St. Romain I've had good experience with Disk Warrior, but have recently purchased TT. I like the emergency disk image it creates, and how you can add other utilities to it. So at this time, I've got DW in my TT emergency disk image, along with a few other utilities.

Phil, I beta tested the builds leading up to 4.0.1 but was cautioned not to try adding any other utilities.

1. Could you, please, describe what you did to add DW (and was it DW 3? and have there been any hiccups in running either TTP or DW from your eDrive?

(I've got a Beige G3 with a single drive using 10.2.8 (and a TTP 4.0.1 eDrive to which I'd love to add other utilities. On my 733-mhz G4 running 10.3.2, I have an external FireWire hard drive so except for the beta testing I did, I launch TTP 4.0.1 from that drive rather than the eDrive. But if my external drive ever goes down, it's nice to have the eDrive as a backup.)

2. Which other utilities did you add?

Jacques, as Phil, I've had excellent experience with Disk Warrior. I will continue to keep up with the upgrades. But I'm in love with a number of the extra features of TechTool Pro. One example of many that come to mind, the other day after login and a test of the volume structure that I've scheduled daily, together with a SMARTS hardware procedure, I got an email from my computer telling me that I had a volume structure problem! (which I then repaired with TTP).

Respectfully, Norm

[Phil St. Romain]

Norm, I read the cautions, but based on what I'd read on other forums and Micromat's own enthusiastic endorsement on their web site, I decided to try dragging a few other programs into the eDrive. After booting into the eDrive, I dragged Disk Warrior, Virex, and a few other apps into the eDrive Application folder. Then I just started up Disk Warrior 3 and it ran fine. No hiccups. As long as I have the drive space, I find this easier than booting from the CD. And what's really nice is that you can keep a completely updated version of the app in the eDrive--not always possible with a CD.

I'm not sure yet about Virex as I haven't tried it. It may require a new installation.

Of course, Disk First Aid can be used from the eDrive as well, as Disk Utility is installed with the eDrive, along with few other utilities, including the Terminal.

[Norm Nager]

Quote: Originally posted by Phil St. Romain . . . . After booting into the eDrive, I dragged Disk Warrior . . . and a few other apps into the eDrive Application folder. Then I just started up Disk Warrior 3 and it ran fine. No hiccups. As long as I have the drive space, I find this easier than booting from the CD. And what's really nice is that you can keep a completely updated version of the app in the eDrive--not always possible with a CD. . . .

That's absolutely great, Phil. I dared to disregard a warning when I was beta testing to create an eDrive on a Beige G3 and was delighted when it worked rather than crashed. But I got cold feet about adding to the eDrive until learning of your pioneering move.

Am I correct in assuming that you're doing this with OS 10.3.2?

Did you drag over your DW preferences or other files, or just the app?

Disk Warrior alone will be a valuable addition to my eDrive, particulary with the ability to incorporate updated versions.

What do you think about adding Norton Disk Doctor 8.0.1 to the eDrive?

[Phil St. Romain]

Norm, I can't speak for a Beige G3, but I've had no trouble with other utilities on my flat-panel 17" iMac. I am running 10.3.2, which DW can't fully make use of (it fixes some things, but doesn't do a complete rebuild; supposedly, booting from the CD still works.) Alsoft is promising an update soon--about time, 3 months after Panther's release. I just let DW create its own preferences in the user library on the eDisk.

I can't speak for Norton as I don't own it. Some forum members swear by it; others think it's the devil.


BTW, I started to do an optimization/defrag using TT on the eDrive, but canceled out in the middle. According to my calculations, at the rate it was going, it would have taken over 60 hrs. to complete! Can that be right? Everything seems to be working OK, so I don't think canceling hurt anything.

[lerkfish]

As I understand it, TT optimization first makes a copy of your data to another part of the drive, erases the original data, then replaces it in contiguity in the original location.

That's why it takes a long time. Norton does that same operation, but piece by piece, so it doesn't have to copy as much data over the whole operation and can increase its optimization speed.

At least, I think that's the reason.

[Norm Nager]

Quote: Originally posted by Phil St. Romain . . . . I started to do an optimization/defrag using TT on the eDrive, but canceled out in the middle. According to my calculations, at the rate it was going, it would have taken over 60 hrs. to complete! Can that be right? Everything seems to be working OK, so I don't think canceling hurt anything.

1. Phil, I did optimize from both the eDrive and TTP 4.0.1 on an external FW harddrive. I didn't time it, but it seemed faster than optimizations I did with Symantec's Speed Disk and Micromat's Disk 10. The variables, I guess, would include how big a volume you're optimizing, how much fragmentation exists, where the free space and fragments exist, etc. In my case, on my G4 I've got two volumes on each drive, the OS X drive with less than 5 GB of 20, and the OS 9 volume with photos, music, and all my documents with less than 4 GB of 20. I'll do a timed optimization and report back here.

2. I recall once having stopped an optimization in mid-stream and having to replace a badly corrupted volume with a backup. It may have been while beta testing one of the optimization utilities or a public release, I just don't recall. But I certainly would avoid if at all possible ever breaking into an optimization cycle. I guess it may depend on exactly where you are in the process, but it's pretty risky with any utilitiy, I'd think.

3. An excellent source of info would be the Micromat rep who goes by the handle of MicroMat Tech3 on the MacFixIt.com "utilities" forum. He's pretty responsive, but I recall he once handled a question on how long it takes to optimize (which was buried in multiple questions in one thread) by giving one of those "it depends . . ." answers. You might do an optimization analysis, rather than optimization, and give him the data from that in posing a question.

Norm

[Norm Nager]

Quote: Originally posted by Phil St. Romain . . . . I started to do an optimization/defrag using TT on the eDrive. . . . According to my calculations, at the rate it was going, it would have taken over 60 hrs. to complete! Can that be right? .. . . .

Quote: Originally posted by Norm Nager Phil, . . . . I'll do a timed optimization and report back here. Norm][/i]

OK. Booted TTP 4.0.1 software-created eDrive. Took 10 seconds to get to journaling tool and disable journaling on my OS 10.3.2 volume.

Started optimization at 7:01. Somewhere between 8:05 and 8:10, optimization was completed. Let's just say less than 1 hour, 10 minutes.

I then heeded my Post-It note reminder to use the TTP journaling tool to re-enable journaling before quitting and rebooting back into 10.3.2.

The 10.3.2 volume used 4.63 GB of the 20 GB partition on my hard drive. , leaving 14.54 GB free. TTP found 873 fragmented files, 1023 volume fragments, and 2670 disk fragments. The progress bar moved fairly quickly when I dropped in to check from time to time. I don't know what the figure represents, but the total number showing on the progress bar to complete and then completed was 1,303,237. I'd be interested if somebody could tell me what that figure might represent.

I ran the optimization on a 733-mhz G4 QuickSilver tower with 1 GB RAM.

Hope that's useful.

Respectfully, Norm

[Phil St. Romain]

Norm, 80 G hard drive here, using about 45 G at this time. DW shows about 21% of files "out of order." That progress line for defrag in TT4 showed about 9,000,000 units of some kind to contend with, and it was chomping away at about 75 or so ever second or two. It took 7 min. to move forward 10,000 units (I don't think they're files--I con't have anywhere close that many files). Ugh. No thanks. Maybe it was going to speed up at some point, but after 3 hrs., we were just creeping along.

Everything's running fine. I guess I cancelled before anything got moved. Or maybe the OS can still track down the fragments. Maybe I'll try again sometime when I can leave it running for a day or so.

[Norm Nager]

I found a fascinating discussion on optimization and why it's beneficial to do even with OS 10.3.2 by "MicroMat Tech3" (the Micromat rep) in a thread on "Best OS X Defrag/Optimizing Tool" in the utilities forum at macfixit.com:

Quote: The most complete summary of what I have to say about optimization follows: MicroMat strongly recommends that you always leave at least 15% of any HFS+ volume as free space. If an HFS+ volume is more than 85% full and is heavily fragmented, any further data added to the disk can result in irreparable damage to the disk directory. The first time I heard about the 85% full guideline for HFS+ volumes was shortly after the developer of TechTool Pro determined that there was such a problem and found that it could be reproduced. The first three pieces (extents) of a Macintosh file are recorded in the Catalog B-Tree. Any additional pieces are recorded in the Extents B-Tree (known within Apple as the Extents Overflow File). These two files make up the major part of the disk directory, and are created when the disk is formatted or initialized. When a disk is formatted, its sectors are organized into allocation blocks, groups of consecutive sectors. One of the advantages of HFS+ disks is that the allocation blocks can be as small as 4K. This advantage results in less waste of disk space on disks that contain many small files, because each file, no matter how little useful data it contains, occupies at least one allocation block. Any ordinary file can grow by an increment as small as one allocation block, but the Catalog B-Tree and Extents B-Tree cannot. If they are full, and new entries need to be made in them, then a new piece of Catalog B-Tree or Extents B-Tree must be added to the disk. If these logical structures could grow by one allocation block, they would spend much of the new space keeping track of their own new pieces. The solution to this problem is to require that the Catalog B-Tree and Extents B-Tree grow by an amount of disk space equal to the "clump size". In order for the new piece of Catalog B-Tree or Extents B-Tree to work efficiently, it is required to be written to disk space that is not only free, but contiguous. If the amount of contiguous free disk space is less than the clump size, and a new piece of Catalog B-Tree or (more likely) Extents B-Tree must be added to the disk, an older piece of Catalog B-Tree or Extents B-Tree is overwritten. The resulting disaster cannot be repaired by any utility. I do not know the relationship between allocation block size and clump size, but on a 2 GB HFS+ volume that has 4K allocation blocks, the clump size is 4 MB, or 1024 allocation blocks. (In this case, the clump size is 1/500 of the capacity of the disk. For a 100 GB disk, that would be 200 MB, if the relationship is linear.) Therefore, if this disk needs to add a new piece of Catalog B-Tree or Extents B-Tree, and the amount of contiguous free disk space is less than 4 MB, irreparable damage results. I supposed one could contrive to make a disk that was less than 85% full, yet had so many small scattered files that the amount of contiguous free disk space was less than "clump size", but I have not heard of that happening. It would probably require considerable effort to contrive. Disk optimizers began on the Macintosh in an effort to improve the performance of early hard drives. With today’s high-speed drives, the amount of time required to open a file that is in 60 pieces appears to the user to be only slightly greater than the amount of time required to open it if it is one piece. However, the optimizer is now seen to have a purpose more important than performance. In addition to ensuring that HFS+ volumes have sufficient free contiguous disk space for the disk directory to grow, disk optimizers are useful because they simplify the disk directory, causing all of the nodes in the Extents B-Tree to be free rather than used. A simplified disk directory is easier to repair or rebuild. One symptom of an excessively complex disk directory is an error messsage from Disk First Aid that the “hash table is full.” The hash table is created in RAM by Disk First Aid as it attempts to rebuild the disk directory. It is not a file on the disk itself. Should you ever require the services of a data recovery firm, please be advised that your bill will be proportional to how badly fragmented your disk is. File recovery is greatly simplified when the pieces (extents) of a file do not require being searched for individually by a person. Always make and test a backup before running any disk optimizer. It is prudent to check the volume structures (disk directory) of the disk before running the optimizer, and to perform a surface scan to check for bad blocks before the optimizer begins to move around large amounts of data. A UPS device to ensure a steady supply of electricity for models other than iBooks and PowerBooks is highly recommended. The claim that installations of Mac OS X on HFS+ volumes do not fragment is a myth believed by people who do not have disk optimizers that allow them to see how much fragmentation their disks have. It is an example of ignorance that is not able to be removed by any amount of evidence. I think theologians call that “invincible ignorance.” It is now a widespread form of the pollution of information space. I decided to erase a damaged 9.1 GB HFS+ volume named Cube_Part_3, and to install Mac OS X 10.2.0 on it. After the installer was finished, I repaired the permissions, then restarted under Mac OS 9 so I could use TechTool Pro 3.0.9 to see how many fragmented files there were, and in how many pieces the free space was. There were 146 fragmented files, and the free space was in 519 pieces. Fortunately, one of them made up much of the majority of the free space on the disk. After running the 10.2.6 Combo Updater, I repaired the permissions again, then restarted under Mac OS 9 to check the disk. There were 149 fragmented files, and the free space was in 2,454 pieces. Of course, many of these small free space fragments will be able to accomodate the writing of small files in a single extent later, but these figures do show that it might be a good idea to optimize the volume before and after adding the third-party applications. Having the disk completely optimized before you start adding, modifying, and deleting your own documents is worth the small amount of effort it takes. I installed Mac OS X 10.3.0 on an external FireWire drive, a LaCie Data Bank. The result was 115 fragmented files, 153 file fragments (file pieces, or extents, beyond the first one), and a free space in 249 pieces. UFS disks attempt to reduce fragmentation by putting all the pieces of a file (called “extents”) on the same cylinder. If the cylinder becomes full and new pieces must be added to the files on it, the files fragment. UFS disks use structures call indirect and double-indirect inodes to keep track of the locations of pieces of fragmented files. For an inode diagram that includes single and double indirect blocks on UFS disks: http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/ext2intro.html For a good text description of a UFS disk, see http://www.hicom.net/~shchuang/Unix/unix4.html and http://www.isu.edu/departments/comco...op/fstour.html . Apple does not recommend using UFS disks unless you are a developer working on software for UNIX platforms. Apple’s implementation of UFS is said to be relatively slow, and if fsck cannot fix a disk directory error, there is no alternative to reformating the volume and restoring the files from a backup.

[yellow]

Lordy if I have to hear about or read this article one more time....
Be sure to zip right down and get yourself a copy so you can optimize your hard drive!

edit: The missing link

[Phil St. Romain]

yellow, I don't think Norm can be expected to know what you've read, or to make allowances accordingly. Having the quote on this thread will make it more accessible to others in the future, however. Also, I'm not hearing this as an endorsement of TT4 so much as a recognition of the value of optimizing and defragmenting. Presumably, one could use other utilities besides TT4 to accomplish these tasks.

[yellow]

I had no expectation that Norm should know what I've read, nor do I fault him in any way for posting that endoresment for all things optimized here. I should be, however, free to express my opinion for other thread readers in the future to read. It's my fault for nay-saying and not formulating a reason for said nay-sayery. My mistake was leaving out the link of the thread where I made it quite plain how I felt about the whole defragmentation issue.

I simply want to make sure that anyone who reads this thread doesn't feel like they have to get both DW and TTP, or TTP soley because they absolutely must defragment their drive(s) or their computers won't work right. It's an option, not a necessity. Kinda like heated seats on your car.

For you, Mr. & Ms. Fencesitter, wasting your time reading my post, please know you can go your entire life with your Mac and never had to "optimize" or "defrag" your hard drive and be none-the-worse-for-the wear.

[yellow]

Quote: Originally posted by yellow Lordy if I have to hear about or read this article one more time....

And apologies to Norm, I didn't mean to detract from your post. There's good information in there for those that were curious about how an HFS+ file system works.

[Phil St. Romain]

. . .I should be, however, free to express my opinion for other thread readers in the future to read. . .

You are, and you did. No constraint on your freedom to do so was stated or implied, yellow. Your comment just seemed very much out-of-sync with the discussion going on and somewhat dismissive of the info Norm was presenting. Glad to see you've clarified all that.

yellow, in that thread you referred us to in your edit, you state that Panther defrags on the fly. OK. I see that happening when I install a new app. But TT and DW show that I have extensive fragmentation. This could be from web pages in cache, or from any documents created. I don't think Panther defrags those.

Maybe defragging isn't a big necessity, but if the OS has to track down file fragments every time it opens a file, that really is extra work, and the more fragmented, the less optimal the performance. That point makes sense to me. It doesn't mean that everyone has to run out and defrag, however, at least that's not the point I'm hearing made about this.

[yellow]

Actually, I don't believe that the "Optimization" part of an install is an attempt to defrag what was just installed. I think it's an unfortunate overlapping in words. I was under the impression that the OS actually defragged, on the fly, oft-used, large files that it thought were spread a bit too far and wide.

If you live at the edge of your disk space, you risk disk corruption because of fragments, but you're also feeling sluggish performance long before that because the OS has no space to swap in to. Disk is cheap, disk is fast, so there's little excuse for most folks that actually might use their whole disk.

On the whole, defragging for most people won't gain them anything except a 1/2 second faster response when they open that iMovie project. I feel it's my duty to keep one more urban-mac-rumors (like 'repairing permissions daily keeps my mac running better') from coming to the surface.

NOT that I'm saying this thread is promoting that!!
People jump to their own conclusions, I just want to play a bit of devil's advocate.
But not as badly as Keanu, duuuude!!

[Norm Nager]

I appreciate and respect the thoughts expressed by Phil St. Romain and by Yellow.

Back to the poll question, to me, the most important values of a good utility such as TTP or DW, lie in the ability to diagnose problems, rebuild directory structures, repair file problems and/or give early warning of software or hardware problems that can cause grief and cost a lot of time if left unattended.

(As to optimization/defragmentation, I do it only occasionally on my primary computer, a G4, but depend on it a great deal more on an old Beige G3 where speed and space are much more important when limited to a max of 8 GB of space for one's OS X volume on an ATA drive. I do wonder, however, whether it makes a difference in the time needed for coded incremental backups.)

[yellow]

Quote: Originally posted by Norm Nager Back to the poll question, to me, the most important values of a good utility such as TTP or DW, lie in the ability to diagnose problems, rebuild directory structures, repair file problems and/or give early warning of software or hardware problems that can cause grief and cost a lot of time if left unattended.

Hear, hear!! Or is it here, here? Either way, right on.

[Jacques]

I've read around quite a bit, to pick one out as the champion. In every circle I've been in, except something related to MM - it seems the conclusion is that defrag is nice, but not needed.

Everywhere I've posed the question, the unanimous decision seems to be DW!

No one yet has word on AlSoft's Panther release, should be soon.

thanks for the comments and tips

Jacques