Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 



Sign in to follow this  
Nomen

Copy contents from drive 1 to (new) drive 2 = defrag?

Recommended Posts

I've connected (slaved) a 750 gb sata drive (single FAT32 volume, 80% full) to PC's running XP and 7 and have used Window's native defrag as well as trial version of O&O defrag and let the defrag process go for up to 4, 5 days straight and still the process doesn't seem to be over.

So here's what I want to know:  If I copy files from what could be a slightly fragged or very fragged FAT32 drive to a brand-new, newly-formatted SATA FAT32 drive, will the files be placed on the new drive in an "un-fragged" manner, or will the placement of the files somehow aquire some degree of fragmentation by nature of how windows (XP or 7) moves/copies files between drives?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, it'll be fully "defragged" or, to put it better, each file'll be contiguous, at the end of the copy operation, no matter how fragmented it might have been in the source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if XP/7 performs multiple simultaneous file-copying instead of single, linear copying and the end result (for a FAT32 file system) would still be a fragmented file system on the target drive.  This could also be a function of file caching, sata drivers maybe?  I'm wondering this because XP/7 seem to have a hell of a time hammering away at this source drive, trying to defrag it, after so much time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in any case you can use xcopy (actually XCOPY32).

SERVe Kentucky Fried Chicken Hot! :yes:

http://www.duxcw.com/digest/Howto/hd/cpyhd/cpyhd2.htm

The issue with the above may be what happens in case of errors, hence a more suitable little tool is ycopy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080731175052/http://www.ruahine.com:80/ycopy-file-copy-utility.html

http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/System-Miscellaneous/Ycopy.shtml

 

jaclaz

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be no performance advantage to simultaneous copying so I doubt anyone would try to do so.

The main disadvantage is that you might not benefit from layout optimizations that some defragmenters provide.

Also System files will be moved potentially breaking some old Copy Protection schemes.

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

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×