Defrag Problem (Win XP)

Topic

New Reply

When I defrag, I end up with a lot of files that can’t be defragged. This is from a log that I saved:Folder fragmentation
Total folders = 4,442
Fragmented folders = 42
Excess folder fragments = 80
It represents about 5-10 mb.
How do I defrag all of my files?

Reply | Quote

Replies

Eli–

I assume you’re using the defrag tool in XP made by Diskeeper. Some of the defragers differ a bit in how they handle system files, but in general the most common reason for this are that system files (particulary with the amount of real estate you’re showing) are not meant to be defraged. In other words, it is not something that you’re failing to get done with the defrag that you need to strive to do. Also, if you have an NTFS file system, and there maybe security settings that are blocking access to files that aren’t system files that could be defraged.

See:
Diskeeper FAQ’s: I have many files (more than 15) that Diskeeper cannot seem to defragment, why?

One of the keys to defragging well (and I may be preaching to the choir here) is to keep 20-30% of free space on each drive you’re defraggging. When disk drives get quite full, any defrag will run but won’t be getting the job done.

SMBD

Reply | Quote

WOW!
I’m blown away by your detailed answer and the diskkeeper FAQs.
My drive is about 59% free and it’s FAT32.
I guess that like getting older, this is something I’ll have to learn to live with.
Again, thank you.
Eli

Reply | Quote

[indent]

---

How do I defrag all of my files?

---

[/indent]Well, you can’t truly do that. Even if you defragment a volume to perfection, as soon as it’s used it stands the chance of become fragmented to some degree again. The important point here is whether or not it affects performance.

Try to think of it in terms of . For example, you could have ten bills of one unit each (1 dollar in the US), and then ten units of ten (ten 10 dollar bills, for a total of 100). Together, you have 110 dollars, but the number of paper bills that you are carrying doesn’t equal 110…you are carrying twenty bills total. With me so far?

Now, suppose you have a transaction and you are purchasing some computer equipment that will cost you one hundred five (105) dollars. If you had to count out 105 single paper bills, you’d be standing there for a while. But since you “defragmented” your wallet and now are carrying larger denomination bills, you can make this transaction far more efficient.

This is what is happening on your disk. You’ve got some loose change, but it isn’t hurting anything, because when Windows wants something, the disk can pay for it with large bills and save some time. If the disk had nothing but single units all over the place, it would have to take the necessary time to count up everything it owed Windows and then hand it over, and it would take longer.

Hope that helps,

Reply | Quote

A bit technical! But I do like it (might even have to steal your “owing Windows” story, ’cause my version has been known to cause ).

Reply | Quote

Hi and thank you for the lucid explanation.
I’ve learned that I don’t have diskkeeper but
Disk Defragmenter Microsoft Corp, Executive Software Int’l Version: 1.0.
The strange thing is that I have no fragmented files when I defrag my D drive on the same PC.
As to whether the performance sufferes, I don’t know. I do know that I need Task Manager 3-4 times a day because programs don’t respond or I get “Sorry but we’re closing x program down” and I send the reports to MS.

Reply | Quote

>> The strange thing is that I have no fragmented files when I defrag my D drive on the same PC.

Not really strange. If your system files are on C: the chances are some will be in use and locked against access. If you only have data files on D: (or applications not currently being used) they can be freely moved.

Executive Software make Diskeeper and I think what comes as standard with XP is ‘Diskeeper Lite’. For most it is good enough, particularly if you have plenty of free space.

I think your problem where programs do not respond is a separate issue – I would do a thorough ChkDsk on all drives for starters. If this doesn’t help, I would start a new thread listing the applications that are giving you grief.

Reply | Quote

Eli–

What you have[/i] in the native XP defragger is the “lesser capability” version of Diskeeper made by Exec Soft for MS–the same people who make the 3rd party Diskeeper. It’s a “watered down version” that doesn’t have a number of features that Diskeeper has, and having used them both side by side there is no comparison. I feel the same way about Norton Speed Disk which comes in Norton System Works, but some might not agree. To me Diskeeper is head and shoulders better than the two mentioned above.

The one for purchase is more comprehensive, can do real time defrag in the background, although I think it interferes with performance this way so I don’t “set it and forget it” I run it manually every couple days. It can defrag your MFT in the Windows GUI, as opposed to having to do it on Boot in NT and 2K, and it will defrag your page file in a couple minutes on boot for each drive. I really like Diskeeper. It does the job well for me. If you do it regularly I have an 80 GB drive, and I have friends with bigger (Costco is selling Maxtor 7200 RPM 120GB now for $110) and all of us use Diskeeper 7.0 manually (new update Build 430) and it runs fast for us all. My drives with the OS and all my applications take about 4 minutes max if I do it every couple days.

I talked to Diskeeper Tech Support today, and we both agreed that these people that say “I just got a 120GB drive–it’s going to take me hours” are in left field and haven’t actually tried it. If you do it regularly while it will vary depending on a number of factors, and allow 20-30% of free space per drive you want to defrag it takes little time at all.

Cowboydawg and Bruce will tell you they love Perfect Disk and they tried them both.

Here’s what I tell people who want to see a difference and there sure is one in XP’s Native Defragger and it’s Big Brother both made by the same company. Download the full version of Diskeeper they have for 30 day trial where. They both co-exist fine. Try them and see the difference and don’t get so hung up on the reports of files defragged. Make sure again that amy drive that you’re defragging has 20 percent of it free (preferrably 30%) if you can possibly space wize because that makes a difference. Compare them and see. Diskeeper is one of best 50 bucks I spent. If you get the Diskeeper 7.0 in Windows XP, it will automatically up in Windows do a Master File Table defrag. If you want to defrag the Page File you have to do it on boot with Diskeeper. You can do the page file with the native defrag in XP made by them, but there are a number of awkward time consuming steps instead of a couple clicks as in DK 7.0.

Diskeeper Free Trial Download
Diskeeper 7.0 Features
Compare Diskeeper in Win 2000 and XP with Diskeeper 7.0

Far and Away Best Way to Run Chkdsk[/u]

Also, as long as we’re on disk care, I have talked over the confusing number of switches and permutations and combinations of running Chkdsk, and most of the experts whose ears I’ve bent say that the bottom line is that you will get the best, most comprehensive check disk run for your system from the Recovery Console using “Chkdsk /r” and it will pay off in performance. It takes about 10 minutes. Better than from the chkdks gui which confuses people, better than from the dos prompt. My advice is to load the recovery console onto your hard drive as a boot option you’ll see right after the firmware screen. To do this:

1) Pop in the XP CD-Rom.
2) If it asks you if you want to upgrade say “No.”
3) At the dos prompt type in “drive :i386winnt32.exe /cmdcons”[/i]

Drive represents the letter of the CD-Rom. After you hit enter and start your PC, you’ll have Recovery Consle as a boot option and this comes in handy as the most effective way to run a Check Disk.

SMBP

Reply | Quote

Thank you for all of the time and effort you put into your reply.
I’m going to do as you suggest.
Eli

Reply | Quote

eli–

Installing the Recovery Console Instructions: Step by Step Screen Shots

SMBP

Reply | Quote

Thank you for the link. I know I’ll use that website often.
Eli

Reply | Quote

“You will notice better performance”.

Well, that is the theory, and I’m sure that benchmarks show faster access times and the rest.

But with all the CPU power currently available, do you really notice “better performance”?

The last time I could actually point to this being a fact, was on a Windows 98 box which had never, ever, been defragmented, and was running like a sick pig and crashing often. Having defragmented it (the run lasting over three days!), it got a new lease of life.

And those who go back to Windows 3.1 and Norton SpeedDisk 4.5 will remember that if you didn’t defragment regularly you got all sorts of nasty Windows problems.

But nowadays, unless your hard disk is in a pathological state, I doubt anyone will notice much difference, before and after a defragment, unless they’ve not done it for months…

Discuss!

Reply | Quote

I have to concur with you, John. To a point, anyway. I had a recent discovery, if you can call it that, where Diskeeper wasn’t defragmenting my hard drive. The cause of that problem was self induced; I set the scheduler to do its thing overnight and that’s when my machine goes into standby. You can’t keep up the maintenance when the machine is essentially turned off! I had a hit on performance simply due to the fact that my program files and system partition were badly fragmented, and once I cleaned that mess up the system was a great deal more responsive.

Adding to this mess was the fact that I had upgraded the hard drive a few months back and copied the image from the old drive using the Maxtor software. Since the partitions had never been defragmented after the imaging process, I had a complete mess on my hands.

I think this situation is somewhat rare, though. This isn’t the kind of thing that happens on a regular basis; usually a new hard drive gets a fresh install of Windows too. In the real world, it takes a lot of time for a volume to get so fragmented that you would notice. The down side is that it also happens slowly, over time, so you might not realize the problem until it’s gotten bad.

Reply | Quote

Me? Have opinions?? It has never been known!!!

‘Bout time you got yourself one of those 3 GHz computers then you’d hardly notice if your hard disk was fragmented!

Reply | Quote

Thank you for taking the time to get back to me.
I’ve d/l Diskkeeper on a trial basis and I don’t think that it did much better than Defragger. I’ll keep working at it.
Eli

Reply | Quote

Correction – I d/l Perfectdisk and it didn’t set the world on fire.

Reply | Quote

I usually run Defrag in Safe Mode; it’s stops the starts and re-starts.
It’s a Dell 433 mhz on WinXP with a 40 gig hd. I’m using about 41% of the drive.
Eli

Reply | Quote