Nomen Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomen Posted December 14, 2017 Author Share Posted December 14, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tripredacus Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 I think it still only will do one file at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 And in any case you can use xcopy (actually XCOPY32). SERVe Kentucky Fried Chicken Hot! 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rloew Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now