Nomen

Question about defrag

28 posts in this topic

jaclaz/rloew - is that correct?

I am not sure to understand what you were trying to say about FAT and Data area).

See if a book comparison helps (or completely fails to) clearing the matter (or some other analogy):

http://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=5150/

http://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/p=6536153/#6536153

In FAT a deleted file is simply marked as deleted (and not actually deleted), that's why tools like the good ol' DOS undelete would work.

A defragmenting tool, by definition, considers a deleted file (and the sectors where it is physically residing) just if they were "free" or "unallocated".

The actual defragging algorithm (and or "strategy") of course may greatly vary from one program and the other, and some may have a "directory consolidation" feature, with some possible caveats, namely for FAT32 filesystem

An example of program that has "specific" directory consolidation features is mydefrag:

http://www.mydefrag.com/index.html

One of it's advantages is it's scripting engine, that allows for "fine-tuning" it's behaviour.

BUT, the built-in 2K/XP (and possibly later) defrag API used by these tool misses "consolidating" provisions for directories on FAT32 (and mydefrag uses this API).

See:

http://www.mydefrag.com/Manual-KnownProblems.html

The Windows defragmentation API refuses to move directories on FAT32 filesystems. This is a known limitation of the Windows defragmentation API and not a bug in MyDefrag.

still, poor man's ways do exist:

http://www.mydefrag.com/forum/index.php?topic=2303.0

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?Guess I must be "confusing" or "getting confused". Just as the Directory Entry is "flagged" and the actual File Clusters are "still available" unless over-written (file no longer intact/corrupted)... (now I got messy again...)

Let me pose it this way -

Wouldn't a "simple copy" (by whatever program) not know whether it should "reuse" the exact same Clusters as the Original File occupied resulting in "copying" it to a brand new set of Clusters since it has no way of knowing it's the exact same file and filesize thus causing fragmentation and "free cluster gaps" after a perfectly good "defrag" operation?

It seems that's the point of IF you (operation sequence)

source->backup->format-source->backup->source

-OR- a suitable full-defrag Only Once. Only a MOVE of a File/Folder from DirectoryA to DirectoryB within the Same Partition would the Original Clusters be retained.

The OP's problem with it lies with the fact that they (operation sequence)

source->backup->defrag-source->backup->source

The CENTER operation causing the "re-frag" and the confusion over "why should it".

Clarified? True?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, I did use ultradefrag yesterday (I know I didn't mention it in my last post). I used it more today - I went back and forth between these methods:

- native XP defrag

- ultradefrag

- jkdefrag

- using Contig on individual files

The root problem is not the fact that copying files from NTFS source to FAT32 destination can be "messed up" if the source file is fragged as it sits on the NTFS drive (it wasn't, btw) or that copying using the gui (copy - and - paste) can invoke a multi-threaded process that will results in a fragmented destination (it doesn't, because command-shell copy method gave exactly the same results).

The root problem is that there seems to be something about a "well used" Win-98 volume that, over time, results in immovable files (seems to be very small files) that prevents large contiguous blocks of clusters from being created during defrag sessions.

Of the methods I've tried so far, I was not impressed by ultradefrag (just based on how "hard" it worked at re-arranging the little blocks on the screen during it's defrag runs). Sometimes it didn't even do anything after I made changes the volume. Jkdefrag, on the other hand, always worked very hard at re-arranging the little blocks (reminded me of Norton Speed Disk).

I remember that when Norton was done with a defrag job, the graphical layout of the drive was completely nice and tidy looking. No stray blocks or streaks of files strewn about the layout. Everything was compacted down and contiguous. I haven't tried norton yet.

Something else I've been doing is going crazy with re-setting file and directory attributes - removing System, Hidden and Read-Only when ever I see them. Also deactivated XP's desire to store restore points in System Volume Information folder on this slaved FAT32 drive. I've been focusing on the "C" volume on this drive. It's 32 gb FAT32, with about 20-25% free space, about 7,000 folders and maybe 100k files.

I haven't used win-98's native defrag because I don't like to defrag a drive that's in-use by the OS, and at that location I don't have a second win-98 system handy that I can commandeer for several hours to act as a master to defrag this drive as a slave.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) Nomen found some files giving the "will not defrag" behaviour by the XP

defragger were '.PST' files on the FAT32 drive. (He has previously mentioned

he has OutLook 2000, I assume used on or with the FAT32 drive.)

Will XP defragger act to defrag PST files?? I haven't seen an explicit yes/no

reference to answer that question. In the circumstance where PST file(s) are

being held open/in use, I suspect that they would not be acted upon.

I suggest checking in [task manager, etc.] the XP system that no processes

are running of MS Exchange, Windows Messaging, Outlook (any version),

any email programs [from web - "Make sure that any AddIns are closed - e.g.

the IncrediMail AddIn often remains running after Outlook is closed."], anything

that might make use of a PST file, e.g. Word/Excel/Access processes.

Optimately, retry with no XP processes running except essential OS ones &

the defragmenter (but first read below).

_

2.) I'm a bit surprized no-one has queried Nomen to confirm that he has

}before attempting to defrag his PST file(s){, carried out actions to

decrease their size i.e. open in OutLook 2000, delete unwanted data (e.g.

obviously you want to keep all important email/contacts/calender data,

maybe not 'Inbox' unnecessary attachments or 'Deleted items' folders' data

inside the PST file(s) internal Folders) & then competently use OutLooks'

'Compact' function.

_

3.) Nomen Post#18 said;

"The root problem is that there seems to be something about a "well

used" Win-98 volume that, over time, results in immovable files (seems

to be very small files) that prevents large contiguous blocks of clusters

from being created during defrag sessions."

You mean like the "Data that will not be moved" disk clusters that you see

when running the W98 defragger? I had the impression they were some

kind of marker structure laid down during FDisking or Formatting process,

or/also maybe Directory File Tables (which would explain why more of

them appear as you add more files to a drive). No?

Edited by buyerninety
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomen,

please re-read (possibly slowly) my previous post.

Any defragger using the Windows 2K/XP defrag API will NOT be capable of consolidating directories, which seemingly is the issue you are having AND I gave you a link to a possible way to work around this limitation. (still provided that the residual current fragmentation prevents Wincontig to operate successfully).

@buyerninety

The FAT32 partition we are talking about is the "system" partition used by the WIn9x system on a disk used in ANOTHER PC Nomen's has, which is temporarily connected as "slave" to an XP system.

If he has his Outlook 2000 .pst files (from the running XP) saved on that disk more than anything else he is a magician ;).

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

didn't read all, but there is easier solution to defrag files,

simply those fragmented you have trouble with put into ISO (make ISO of them)

1. then either copy iso to this another disk you have and extract those files back

2. or burn the ISO on DVD, but as single file and again extract those files back to your FAT disk

3. OR extract them back from same HDD from ISO back

reason I'm annoying with ISO, is because files in image file are being put in sorted order, so they are being defragmented there by default :)

therefore when extracted (again they are sorted extracted) they become defragmented, under condition your primary hard disk is

properly defragmented without small free spaces

Edited by vinifera
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vinifera

The dictionary you are using must have a different meaning for "easy". :w00t:

Easier would be defrag the system in the original system/OS, something that the OP - for any reason - is not wanting to do.

Your "solution" won't work BTW, the issue here is not fragmentation of files, it is fragmentation of the filesystem BEFORE the files are copied to it.

If you write a large contiguous file to a "fragmented enough" filesystem, the result is a fragmented file.

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jaclaz Post#20 said;

"@buyerninety

The FAT32 partition we are talking about is the "system" partition used by the WIn9x system on a disk used in ANOTHER PC Nomen's has, which is temporarily connected as "slave" to an XP system."

_-Yes.

"If he has his Outlook 2000 .pst files (from the running XP) saved on that"[FAT32]" disk more than anything else he is a magician ;)."

_-But jaclaz, he has not stated that the pst files were created originally by an Outlook 'from the running XP'. Indeed, given that he has stated (Post#3) "These are Netscape Navigator email and Outlook 2000 post-office (PST) files", would it not be more reasonable to have assumed that those pst files were created from an instance of OutLook on the drive (Win98 C: drive, FAT32)? (Additionally, because those 2 programs mentioned are from a time frame nearer to Win98 than Win XP?)

Why do you seem to be asserting the pst files originated from or resided originally on the XP drive?

Edited by buyerninety
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

buyerninety,

There has been obviously a misunderstanding.

What the OP stated is:

I have a win-98 system with an 80 gb hard drive, partitioned as C and D (about 32 gb each). So there some unpartitioned space on this drive. Each volume has about 5 gb free space.

I connected the drive as a slave to a win-XP sp3 system, and told it to perform a drive-check on each of these volumes, correct any errors, and then performed a defrag on each volume. The D volume defragged without any files being fragmented. The C volume ended up having about a dozen files with fragments, some only a handful, others having a few hundred fragments. These are large files, from a few hundred mb to 1.2 gb in size.

Evidently he is talking of files "belonging" to the Windows 98 system (and they won't be "in use" by the booted XP).

A defragmenter has no reason to treat a .pst file differently from ANY other file, .pst files are not in any way "system" or "special" files.

There is no reason to believe that the currently booted XP or any of the running processes access these files, if not by "sheer magic", consequently your remark #1 seems largely unjustified.

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Post#1, Nomen said;

"I then copied the problem files back to the C volume (back to the directories where

they were cut from) and did a defrag "analyze" - and these files were showing up as being fragmented. (?!)"

_

In Post#3, Nomen said;

"These are Netscape Navigator email and Outlook 2000 post-office (PST) files."

"One more thing. I re-named one of the fragmented files as it sits on the FAT32

drive and copied another instance of that file from the NTFS drive to the same

directory where this file exists on the FAT32 volume. So the two files are sitting

side-by-side in the same directory on the FAT32 volume (but have different names).

Do you think that this second copy will also be fragmented like it's brother?

Answer: YES."

_

jaclaz said; "A defragmenter has no reason to treat a .pst file differently from

ANY other file"

Given that he has identified that the pst files are not being defragmented, & that

other files are being defragmented, ipso facto, these pst files are being treated

differently [either by the XP defragger or something else]. I'll discount sorcery.

PERHAPS we should be asking Nomen IF the above mentioned [exact same] "two

files sitting side-by-side" that appeared fragmented in Xp defragger, appeared to

be fragmented in Exactly-The-Same-Way, that is, the fragmentation gaps were in

exactly the SAME places, in each file, OR if the fragmentation gaps were in

DIFFERENT places in each file.

Edited by buyerninety
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... something that the OP - for any reason - is not wanting to do.

guess I missed that then :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jaclaz said; "A defragmenter has no reason to treat a .pst file differently from

ANY other file"

Given that he has identified that the pst files are not being defragmented, & that

other files are being defragmented, ipso facto, these pst files are being treated

differently [either by the XP defragger or something else]. I'll discount sorcery.

PERHAPS we should be asking Nomen IF the above mentioned [exact same] "two

files sitting side-by-side" that appeared fragmented in Xp defragger, appeared to

be fragmented in Exactly-The-Same-Way, that is, the fragmentation gaps were in

exactly the SAME places, in each file, OR if the fragmentation gaps were in

DIFFERENT places in each file.

No ipso facto.

I would look more for probabilities, and coincidences, like you know ;):

These are files that are anywhere from 400 mb to 1.7 gb in size. These are Netscape Navigator email and Outlook 2000 post-office (PST) files.

read as:

The largest files that are on that filesystem - ranging from 400 Mb to 1.7 Gb in size - and that remain not contiguous after the mentioned procedure are - coincidentally - Netscape Navigator email and Outlook 2000 post-office (PST) files-

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our pending questions for Nomen, then, are;

Using the XP MMC (GUI) defragger,

1.) are only the PST files appearing to not defragment,

2.) are only very large files appearing to not defragment,

3.) what , if any, other files appear to not defragment, and

4.) if there are any non-PST files which are larger than a PST file,

does that larger non-PST file defragment?

[Edit: 5.) Do the PST files defragment if only essential XP OS and XP

defragmenter processes are running before starting defragmentation,

as shown in XP task manager?

Sorry-couldn't resist slipping it in.]

We await his return!

Edit: 6.) What version of the XP Defragger is shown in

the Defraggers' About (or Action/About) menu?

Edited by buyerninety
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.