[vinifera]

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

This post has been edited by vinifera: 06 February 2013 - 05:03 AM

[jaclaz]

@vinifera
The dictionary you are using must have a different meaning for "easy".

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

[buyerninety]

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?

This post has been edited by buyerninety: 06 February 2013 - 06:26 AM

[jaclaz]

buyerninety,
There has been obviously a misunderstanding.
What the OP stated is:

Quote

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

[buyerninety]

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.

This post has been edited by buyerninety: 06 February 2013 - 07:11 AM

[vinifera]

jaclaz, on 06 February 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

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

guess I missed that then

[jaclaz]

buyerninety, on 06 February 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

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 :

Nomen said:

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:

Quote

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

[buyerninety]

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?

This post has been edited by buyerninety: 06 February 2013 - 05:50 PM