As I suggested in an earlier blog, we have had a handful of comments on Paul's free space blogs. Given the comments, and the relative ambiguity of this whole discussion, I feel I need to clarify Diskeeper's viewpoints on the matter a bit further. I apologize in advance if this blog seems to originate from the Department of Redundancy Redundancy. Also, I apparently have some as yet undiagnosed affliction that causes me to be exceedingly long-winded. I seem to suffer from the inability to write anything less than a novel about any subject; so a second apology for the blog length. To business… Is it possible that some comments originated from Diskeeper Corporation that said free space consolidation is not important, or did not grant it the proper value? Sure it's possible. Personally I have not seen them, but that might just be me, or I may interpret them differently. What I would argue against is the misuse of a comment: i.e. where a statement is taken out of perspective (a frequent topic of late). A case in point would be misinterpreting Microsoft saying free space defragmentation is important, to meaning that free space needs to be "all in one pool". Microsoft correctly, even if with some ambiguity, values free space consolidation and states in the apparently somewhat disputed report that "Ideally, this space would be available in a few contiguous portions of the disk." So exactly how many is "a few" – that is up for debate and personal interpretation. Yes, one could interpret this to say the best application of "a few" is equal to "one". However, Microsoft does not implicitly say "one".