Problem Defragging Large File

May 18, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

Bill

If you do a Save As you end up with two files when you previously had

one. You may have two copies of the same file but they will have

different names and may be in different formats.

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry

~~~~

FCA

Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bill in Co. wrote:

> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>> Save As will always create a complete new file in a new location.

>

> No offense, but I don't believe that is true. And so far, you

> haven't shown any evidence that it is true. It really makes little

> sense, anyway, when you think about it.

>

>>>>>>>>>> Bill

May 18, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

Well, you can save under the same name, path, type, etc, in which case the

old file is marked for deletion, but essentially yes, there are two files at

the time of the save as. I am primarily describing a technique for saving a

file in an unfragmented state. Of course, the computer books all emphacize

the usages of the command and not how the software accomplishes it, which is

what Bill is contesting. As you say, one well-known use of Save As is to

create a new file with a new format.

"Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:OQ$VFFTuIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Bill

>

> If you do a Save As you end up with two files when you previously had one.

> You may have two copies of the same file but they will have different

> names and may be in different formats.

>

> --

>

> Hope this helps.

>

> Gerry

> ~~~~

> FCA

> Stourport, England

> Enquire, plan and execute

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>> Save As will always create a complete new file in a new location.

>>

>> No offense, but I don't believe that is true. And so far, you

>> haven't shown any evidence that it is true. It really makes little

>> sense, anyway, when you think about it.

>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Bill

>

May 18, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

I have been going back and forth with Bill's concern. What point in your

several replies do you mean?

"Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:ua3sEFTuIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Colin

>

> You have ignored what I said and gone off on a tangent. Please respond to

> the point I made.

>

> ~~~~

>

> Gerry

> ~~~~

> FCA

> Stourport, England

> Enquire, plan and execute

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>> Save As will always create a complete new file in a new location.

>>

>> As far as I know the operation is designed to be quick and be gone,

>> whether Save or Save As. I don't think the file manager messes

>> around with the existing file. There are too many variables and it

>> would take too long. In any case it does not insert data into an

>> existing file. It either saves the changes and updates the file

>> structure data (Save) or it saves a new copy of the file and marks

>> the old for deletion if a new file name, path, or type is not

>> specified (Save As).

>> The Save command is not designed to analyse the file, find an

>> insertion point, open, insert, close, etc. It is a quick and dirty

>> operation.

>> Open uses the links recorded by Save to stitch the file fragments back

>> together in the correct sequence when the file is again called into

>> memory. This sewing machine effect is most noticeable when the drive

>> heads start tracking all over the drive to get all the pieces.

>>

>> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> news:eHa1rMRuIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> Colin

>>>

>>> What you say about Save As depends on how large the file is and

>>> whether the next available free disk space is of sufficient size to

>>> accomodate the file.

>>>

>>> --

>>>

>>> Hope this helps.

>>>

>>> Gerry

>>> ~~~~

>>> FCA

>>> Stourport, England

>>> Enquire, plan and execute

>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>

>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>> Save As saves a contiguous file in a new location. Save saves only

>>>> the changes in a new location.

>>>>

>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:%23KEFfrKuIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>> I don't think that's true (that "Save As" saves in a new location,

>>>>> and Save doesn't). In either case, if the file exists, it will be

>>>>> overwritten in the same location(s), to the best of my knowledge

>>>>> (meaning it will be fragmented, too, since the operating system

>>>>> just looks for free clusters). Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>> Save As doesn't save over it. It saves in a new location

>>>>>> regardless of whether you give it a new filename or not. The

>>>>>> difference is whether or not

>>>>>> the old copy stays (if you give a new name) or is marked for

>>>>>> deletion. "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

>>>>>> message

>>>>>> news:eI$K%23bJuIHA.4876@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>> Actually, I'm pretty certain I was right the first time. There is

>>>>>>> NO difference between using "Save" and "Save As",

>>>>>>> EXCEPT for allowing for a different filename.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If the file is already there and fragmented, and you save over it

>>>>>>> (either

>>>>>>> way!), it will STAY fragmented.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If the file isn't there, and you save it, it makes no difference

>>>>>>> which way

>>>>>>> you save it.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If I'm wrong, show me the site supporting that.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> And the fact that the operating system marks the first cluster to

>>>>>>> indicate

>>>>>>> the file is deleted has nothing to do with this *specific*

>>>>>>> discussion. Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Save As always saves the whole file. When you confirm usage of

>>>>>>>>> the existing

>>>>>>>>> file name it still writes a fresh, contiguous copy file and

>>>>>>>>> marks the old

>>>>>>>>> one for deletion.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Are you sure? And you're also saying that just using SAVE will

>>>>>>>> NOT do that? (in both cases using the same file name of a file

>>>>>>>> that is already

>>>>>>>> on

>>>>>>>> the disk)

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> When you change the filename it writes the new file with

>>>>>>>>> the new name but does not mark the old one for deletion.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> But in both cases above, we're NOT changing the filename.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sharpe" <wfsnopam@adelphia.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>> news:ujE4G0GuIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> It is how the two commands have always worked and why when

>>>>>>>>>>> you use the

>>>>>>>>>>> Save As command you are prompted if the file already exists

>>>>>>>>>>> as to whether

>>>>>>>>>>> or not you want to replace the existing one.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> The Save command only saves the changes to the file and saves

>>>>>>>>>>> them in

>>>>>>>>>>> the next available place large enough for the fragment. That

>>>>>>>>>>> can be anywhere

>>>>>>>>>>> on the drive. The file manager then records a link and the

>>>>>>>>>>> next time

>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>> file is read into memory the file system follows the links

>>>>>>>>>>> until all of

>>>>>>>>>>> the file is in memory. That's what causes the heads to

>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes skip

>>>>>>>>>>> all over the place when loading the file and why it takes a

>>>>>>>>>>> long time

>>>>>>>>>>> and a lot of disk activity to load some files.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> If the file is a series of fragments scattered all over the

>>>>>>>>>>> drive then

>>>>>>>>>>> selecting Save As will write a new, contiguous copy in a

>>>>>>>>>>> location that

>>>>>>>>>>> can hold it, thus eliminating the need for links. The file

>>>>>>>>>>> manager then

>>>>>>>>>>> marks the old pieces as available and the next defrag will

>>>>>>>>>>> consolidate

>>>>>>>>>>> these pieces of free space into larger contiguous areas

>>>>>>>>>>> available for

>>>>>>>>>>> writes. In the meantime disk performance improves because

>>>>>>>>>>> the drive heads are moving far less, shortening access time

>>>>>>>>>>> and reducing wear and

>>>>>>>>>>> tear. There is no downside that I know of to using Save As

>>>>>>>>>>> except the

>>>>>>>>>>> additional step of confirming the "overwrite". No overwrite

>>>>>>>>>>> takes place,

>>>>>>>>>>> of course, since it is a new write. "Overwrite" is just an

>>>>>>>>>>> anecdotal

>>>>>>>>>>> descriptor for what really happens.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> This is a very old computer tip that is still valid. If you

>>>>>>>>>>> search the

>>>>>>>>>>> web though you will see explanations of the difference

>>>>>>>>>>> between the two

>>>>>>>>>>> commands as simply being that Save As offers the opportunity

>>>>>>>>>>> to create

>>>>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>>>> new copy while keeping the old one by changing the file

>>>>>>>>>>> name. That is

>>>>>>>>>>> one of the reasons to sometimes use Save As but by no means

>>>>>>>>>>> the most useful IMHO.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> It is understanding what the Save command does NOT do that is

>>>>>>>>>>> the key.

>>>>>>>>>>> It does not save the entire file, but only the changes from

>>>>>>>>>>> the current

>>>>>>>>>>> session. These are not written into the existing file but in

>>>>>>>>>>> a new location large enough to hold the changes.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

>>>>>>>>>>> message news:e$6wHBGuIHA.3780@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>> But see, if he removes and deletes the file, and then runs

>>>>>>>>>>>> defrag, there

>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be much there to defrag so it will be fast, and then

>>>>>>>>>>>> when he copies it back *to a freshly defragmented drive*, it

>>>>>>>>>>>> should be stored

>>>>>>>>>>>> there in contiguous sectors, right?

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> ALSO:

>>>>>>>>>>>> "Save as" always stores a contiguous file? And "save"

>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't? I didn't know that. Do you have some reference

>>>>>>>>>>>> article on that? (I'm

>>>>>>>>>>>> assuming we're not talking about just overwriting an

>>>>>>>>>>>> existing file when

>>>>>>>>>>>> using Save, which may be different)

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter how he does it because a heavily fragged

>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive will

>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffer far more wear and tear from head movement than any

>>>>>>>>>>>>> defragging

>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation will

>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever cause. The easiest tip for reducing fragmentation in

>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first

>>>>>>>>>>>>> place

>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to avoid using the Save command and stick to Save As.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> That way the

>>>>>>>>>>>>> new or edited file is always contiguous.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:ej2LRuFuIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably be less and wear and tear (and faster!!) to do it

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the way

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gerry mentioned, however.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try downloading a trial copy of PerfectDisk or Diskeeper

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and letting

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it defrag the file. You can uninstall the software

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afterwards. Either

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of those defraggers are excellent at this particular type

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of defragging.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ecfYKB8tIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a file that was over 13BG in size and the Windows

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defrag process

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went fine defragging the file per se. However, when the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defrag process tried

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move this large file it always hung up at 3%. As long

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the file itself

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was being defragged everything was OK, but when it came

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to trying

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move this file is where it always hung up.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have a solution to defragging a large file

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this size

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within Windows XP?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> If you don't change the file name, I would think "save as"

>>>>>>>>>> would work the

>>>>>>>>>> same way as "save." If you do change the file name, yes, I'd

>>>>>>>>>> expect a contiguous file to be created. However, Save is a

>>>>>>>>>> much faster operation,

>>>>>>>>>> Ctrl-S, with no dialog box to fill out.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Bill

>

May 18, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

Colin

What you say about Save As depends on how large the file is and whether

the next available free disk space is of sufficient size to accomodate

the file.

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry

~~~~

FCA

Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Colin Barnhorst wrote:

> I have been going back and forth with Bill's concern. What point in

> your several replies do you mean?

>

> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message

> news:ua3sEFTuIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> Colin

>>

>> You have ignored what I said and gone off on a tangent. Please

>> respond to the point I made.

>>

>> ~~~~

>>

>> Gerry

>> ~~~~

>> FCA

>> Stourport, England

>> Enquire, plan and execute

>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>

>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>> Save As will always create a complete new file in a new location.

>>>

>>> As far as I know the operation is designed to be quick and be gone,

>>> whether Save or Save As. I don't think the file manager messes

>>> around with the existing file. There are too many variables and it

>>> would take too long. In any case it does not insert data into an

>>> existing file. It either saves the changes and updates the file

>>> structure data (Save) or it saves a new copy of the file and marks

>>> the old for deletion if a new file name, path, or type is not

>>> specified (Save As).

>>> The Save command is not designed to analyse the file, find an

>>> insertion point, open, insert, close, etc. It is a quick and dirty

>>> operation.

>>> Open uses the links recorded by Save to stitch the file fragments

>>> back together in the correct sequence when the file is again called

>>> into memory. This sewing machine effect is most noticeable when the

>>> drive heads start tracking all over the drive to get all the pieces.

>>>

>>> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>> news:eHa1rMRuIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>> Colin

>>>>

>>>> What you say about Save As depends on how large the file is and

>>>> whether the next available free disk space is of sufficient size to

>>>> accomodate the file.

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>>

>>>> Hope this helps.

>>>>

>>>> Gerry

>>>> ~~~~

>>>> FCA

>>>> Stourport, England

>>>> Enquire, plan and execute

>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>>

>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>> Save As saves a contiguous file in a new location. Save saves

>>>>> only the changes in a new location.

>>>>>

>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>> news:%23KEFfrKuIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> I don't think that's true (that "Save As" saves in a new

>>>>>> location, and Save doesn't). In either case, if the file

>>>>>> exists, it will be overwritten in the same location(s), to the

>>>>>> best of my knowledge (meaning it will be fragmented, too, since

>>>>>> the operating system just looks for free clusters). Colin

>>>>>> Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>> Save As doesn't save over it. It saves in a new location

>>>>>>> regardless of whether you give it a new filename or not. The

>>>>>>> difference is whether or not

>>>>>>> the old copy stays (if you give a new name) or is marked for

>>>>>>> deletion. "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

>>>>>>> message

>>>>>>> news:eI$K%23bJuIHA.4876@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>> Actually, I'm pretty certain I was right the first time.

>>>>>>>> There is NO difference between using "Save" and "Save As",

>>>>>>>> EXCEPT for allowing for a different filename.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> If the file is already there and fragmented, and you save over

>>>>>>>> it (either

>>>>>>>> way!), it will STAY fragmented.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> If the file isn't there, and you save it, it makes no

>>>>>>>> difference which way

>>>>>>>> you save it.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> If I'm wrong, show me the site supporting that.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> And the fact that the operating system marks the first cluster

>>>>>>>> to indicate

>>>>>>>> the file is deleted has nothing to do with this *specific*

>>>>>>>> discussion. Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Save As always saves the whole file. When you confirm usage

>>>>>>>>>> of the existing

>>>>>>>>>> file name it still writes a fresh, contiguous copy file and

>>>>>>>>>> marks the old

>>>>>>>>>> one for deletion.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Are you sure? And you're also saying that just using SAVE

>>>>>>>>> will NOT do that? (in both cases using the same file name of

>>>>>>>>> a file that is already

>>>>>>>>> on

>>>>>>>>> the disk)

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> When you change the filename it writes the new file with

>>>>>>>>>> the new name but does not mark the old one for deletion.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> But in both cases above, we're NOT changing the filename.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sharpe" <wfsnopam@adelphia.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>> news:ujE4G0GuIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> It is how the two commands have always worked and why when

>>>>>>>>>>>> you use the

>>>>>>>>>>>> Save As command you are prompted if the file already exists

>>>>>>>>>>>> as to whether

>>>>>>>>>>>> or not you want to replace the existing one.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> The Save command only saves the changes to the file and

>>>>>>>>>>>> saves them in

>>>>>>>>>>>> the next available place large enough for the fragment.

>>>>>>>>>>>> That can be anywhere

>>>>>>>>>>>> on the drive. The file manager then records a link and the

>>>>>>>>>>>> next time

>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>> file is read into memory the file system follows the links

>>>>>>>>>>>> until all of

>>>>>>>>>>>> the file is in memory. That's what causes the heads to

>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes skip

>>>>>>>>>>>> all over the place when loading the file and why it takes a

>>>>>>>>>>>> long time

>>>>>>>>>>>> and a lot of disk activity to load some files.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> If the file is a series of fragments scattered all over the

>>>>>>>>>>>> drive then

>>>>>>>>>>>> selecting Save As will write a new, contiguous copy in a

>>>>>>>>>>>> location that

>>>>>>>>>>>> can hold it, thus eliminating the need for links. The file

>>>>>>>>>>>> manager then

>>>>>>>>>>>> marks the old pieces as available and the next defrag will

>>>>>>>>>>>> consolidate

>>>>>>>>>>>> these pieces of free space into larger contiguous areas

>>>>>>>>>>>> available for

>>>>>>>>>>>> writes. In the meantime disk performance improves because

>>>>>>>>>>>> the drive heads are moving far less, shortening access time

>>>>>>>>>>>> and reducing wear and

>>>>>>>>>>>> tear. There is no downside that I know of to using Save As

>>>>>>>>>>>> except the

>>>>>>>>>>>> additional step of confirming the "overwrite". No

>>>>>>>>>>>> overwrite takes place,

>>>>>>>>>>>> of course, since it is a new write. "Overwrite" is just an

>>>>>>>>>>>> anecdotal

>>>>>>>>>>>> descriptor for what really happens.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a very old computer tip that is still valid. If

>>>>>>>>>>>> you search the

>>>>>>>>>>>> web though you will see explanations of the difference

>>>>>>>>>>>> between the two

>>>>>>>>>>>> commands as simply being that Save As offers the

>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to create

>>>>>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>>>>> new copy while keeping the old one by changing the file

>>>>>>>>>>>> name. That is

>>>>>>>>>>>> one of the reasons to sometimes use Save As but by no means

>>>>>>>>>>>> the most useful IMHO.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> It is understanding what the Save command does NOT do that

>>>>>>>>>>>> is the key.

>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not save the entire file, but only the changes from

>>>>>>>>>>>> the current

>>>>>>>>>>>> session. These are not written into the existing file but

>>>>>>>>>>>> in a new location large enough to hold the changes.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:e$6wHBGuIHA.3780@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>>> But see, if he removes and deletes the file, and then runs

>>>>>>>>>>>>> defrag, there

>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be much there to defrag so it will be fast, and then

>>>>>>>>>>>>> when he copies it back *to a freshly defragmented drive*,

>>>>>>>>>>>>> it should be stored

>>>>>>>>>>>>> there in contiguous sectors, right?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALSO:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Save as" always stores a contiguous file? And "save"

>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't? I didn't know that. Do you have some reference

>>>>>>>>>>>>> article on that? (I'm

>>>>>>>>>>>>> assuming we're not talking about just overwriting an

>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing file when

>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Save, which may be different)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter how he does it because a heavily

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fragged drive will

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffer far more wear and tear from head movement than any

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defragging

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation will

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever cause. The easiest tip for reducing fragmentation

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the first

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to avoid using the Save command and stick to Save As.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That way the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new or edited file is always contiguous.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:ej2LRuFuIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably be less and wear and tear (and faster!!) to do

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it the way

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gerry mentioned, however.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try downloading a trial copy of PerfectDisk or

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diskeeper and letting

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it defrag the file. You can uninstall the software

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afterwards. Either

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of those defraggers are excellent at this particular

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of defragging.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ecfYKB8tIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a file that was over 13BG in size and the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows defrag process

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went fine defragging the file per se. However, when

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the defrag process tried

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move this large file it always hung up at 3%. As

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long as the file itself

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was being defragged everything was OK, but when it

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> came to trying

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move this file is where it always hung up.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have a solution to defragging a large

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file of this size

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within Windows XP?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't change the file name, I would think "save as"

>>>>>>>>>>> would work the

>>>>>>>>>>> same way as "save." If you do change the file name, yes, I'd

>>>>>>>>>>> expect a contiguous file to be created. However, Save is a

>>>>>>>>>>> much faster operation,

>>>>>>>>>>> Ctrl-S, with no dialog box to fill out.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Bill

May 18, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

Colin

My comments were directed at Bill!

I doubt that many think about fragmentation when they do a save or save

as

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry

~~~~

FCA

Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Colin Barnhorst wrote:

> Well, you can save under the same name, path, type, etc, in which

> case the old file is marked for deletion, but essentially yes, there

> are two files at the time of the save as. I am primarily describing

> a technique for saving a file in an unfragmented state. Of course,

> the computer books all emphacize the usages of the command and not

> how the software accomplishes it, which is what Bill is contesting. As

> you say, one well-known use of Save As is to create a new file

> with a new format.

> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message

> news:OQ$VFFTuIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> Bill

>>

>> If you do a Save As you end up with two files when you previously

>> had one. You may have two copies of the same file but they will have

>> different names and may be in different formats.

>>

>> --

>>

>> Hope this helps.

>>

>> Gerry

>> ~~~~

>> FCA

>> Stourport, England

>> Enquire, plan and execute

>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>> Save As will always create a complete new file in a new location.

>>>

>>> No offense, but I don't believe that is true. And so far, you

>>> haven't shown any evidence that it is true. It really makes

>>> little sense, anyway, when you think about it.

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill

May 18, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:23:22 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst"

<c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:

>The detailed descriptions are in the API calls (I think) which I have never

>used. As I recall, things like PutFile something or other. I scanned some

>TechNet stuff once, but not my cup of tea. It is all there but that is not

>where I first learned about it. Bop over to TechNet and look for a likely

>forum and ask.

I think this thread has gone far enough. I'm going to kill it here.

Do you think my default settings to delete the kill after 30 days of

the thread's disuse will be long enough, or do you think BinCo will

keep it going into the next millenium? <VBG>

May 18, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

I think that the complete file is saved in a new location. The overhead in

processing a save in place would be very high.

"Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:%23nOLNiTuIHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Colin

>

> What you say about Save As depends on how large the file is and whether

> the next available free disk space is of sufficient size to accomodate

> the file.

>

> --

>

> Hope this helps.

>

> Gerry

> ~~~~

> FCA

> Stourport, England

> Enquire, plan and execute

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>> I have been going back and forth with Bill's concern. What point in

>> your several replies do you mean?

>>

>> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> news:ua3sEFTuIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> Colin

>>>

>>> You have ignored what I said and gone off on a tangent. Please

>>> respond to the point I made.

>>>

>>> ~~~~

>>>

>>> Gerry

>>> ~~~~

>>> FCA

>>> Stourport, England

>>> Enquire, plan and execute

>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>

>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>> Save As will always create a complete new file in a new location.

>>>>

>>>> As far as I know the operation is designed to be quick and be gone,

>>>> whether Save or Save As. I don't think the file manager messes

>>>> around with the existing file. There are too many variables and it

>>>> would take too long. In any case it does not insert data into an

>>>> existing file. It either saves the changes and updates the file

>>>> structure data (Save) or it saves a new copy of the file and marks

>>>> the old for deletion if a new file name, path, or type is not

>>>> specified (Save As).

>>>> The Save command is not designed to analyse the file, find an

>>>> insertion point, open, insert, close, etc. It is a quick and dirty

>>>> operation.

>>>> Open uses the links recorded by Save to stitch the file fragments

>>>> back together in the correct sequence when the file is again called

>>>> into memory. This sewing machine effect is most noticeable when the

>>>> drive heads start tracking all over the drive to get all the pieces.

>>>>

>>>> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:eHa1rMRuIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Colin

>>>>>

>>>>> What you say about Save As depends on how large the file is and

>>>>> whether the next available free disk space is of sufficient size to

>>>>> accomodate the file.

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>>

>>>>> Hope this helps.

>>>>>

>>>>> Gerry

>>>>> ~~~~

>>>>> FCA

>>>>> Stourport, England

>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute

>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>>>

>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>> Save As saves a contiguous file in a new location. Save saves

>>>>>> only the changes in a new location.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:%23KEFfrKuIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>> I don't think that's true (that "Save As" saves in a new

>>>>>>> location, and Save doesn't). In either case, if the file

>>>>>>> exists, it will be overwritten in the same location(s), to the

>>>>>>> best of my knowledge (meaning it will be fragmented, too, since

>>>>>>> the operating system just looks for free clusters). Colin

>>>>>>> Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>> Save As doesn't save over it. It saves in a new location

>>>>>>>> regardless of whether you give it a new filename or not. The

>>>>>>>> difference is whether or not

>>>>>>>> the old copy stays (if you give a new name) or is marked for

>>>>>>>> deletion. "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

>>>>>>>> message

>>>>>>>> news:eI$K%23bJuIHA.4876@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>> Actually, I'm pretty certain I was right the first time. There is

>>>>>>>>> NO difference between using "Save" and "Save As",

>>>>>>>>> EXCEPT for allowing for a different filename.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> If the file is already there and fragmented, and you save over

>>>>>>>>> it (either

>>>>>>>>> way!), it will STAY fragmented.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> If the file isn't there, and you save it, it makes no

>>>>>>>>> difference which way

>>>>>>>>> you save it.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> If I'm wrong, show me the site supporting that.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> And the fact that the operating system marks the first cluster

>>>>>>>>> to indicate

>>>>>>>>> the file is deleted has nothing to do with this *specific*

>>>>>>>>> discussion. Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> Save As always saves the whole file. When you confirm usage

>>>>>>>>>>> of the existing

>>>>>>>>>>> file name it still writes a fresh, contiguous copy file and

>>>>>>>>>>> marks the old

>>>>>>>>>>> one for deletion.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure? And you're also saying that just using SAVE

>>>>>>>>>> will NOT do that? (in both cases using the same file name of

>>>>>>>>>> a file that is already

>>>>>>>>>> on

>>>>>>>>>> the disk)

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> When you change the filename it writes the new file with

>>>>>>>>>>> the new name but does not mark the old one for deletion.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> But in both cases above, we're NOT changing the filename.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sharpe" <wfsnopam@adelphia.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>> news:ujE4G0GuIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is how the two commands have always worked and why when

>>>>>>>>>>>>> you use the

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Save As command you are prompted if the file already exists

>>>>>>>>>>>>> as to whether

>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not you want to replace the existing one.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Save command only saves the changes to the file and

>>>>>>>>>>>>> saves them in

>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next available place large enough for the fragment. That

>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be anywhere

>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the drive. The file manager then records a link and the

>>>>>>>>>>>>> next time

>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>> file is read into memory the file system follows the links

>>>>>>>>>>>>> until all of

>>>>>>>>>>>>> the file is in memory. That's what causes the heads to

>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes skip

>>>>>>>>>>>>> all over the place when loading the file and why it takes a

>>>>>>>>>>>>> long time

>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a lot of disk activity to load some files.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the file is a series of fragments scattered all over the

>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive then

>>>>>>>>>>>>> selecting Save As will write a new, contiguous copy in a

>>>>>>>>>>>>> location that

>>>>>>>>>>>>> can hold it, thus eliminating the need for links. The file

>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager then

>>>>>>>>>>>>> marks the old pieces as available and the next defrag will

>>>>>>>>>>>>> consolidate

>>>>>>>>>>>>> these pieces of free space into larger contiguous areas

>>>>>>>>>>>>> available for

>>>>>>>>>>>>> writes. In the meantime disk performance improves because

>>>>>>>>>>>>> the drive heads are moving far less, shortening access time

>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reducing wear and

>>>>>>>>>>>>> tear. There is no downside that I know of to using Save As

>>>>>>>>>>>>> except the

>>>>>>>>>>>>> additional step of confirming the "overwrite". No

>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwrite takes place,

>>>>>>>>>>>>> of course, since it is a new write. "Overwrite" is just an

>>>>>>>>>>>>> anecdotal

>>>>>>>>>>>>> descriptor for what really happens.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a very old computer tip that is still valid. If

>>>>>>>>>>>>> you search the

>>>>>>>>>>>>> web though you will see explanations of the difference

>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the two

>>>>>>>>>>>>> commands as simply being that Save As offers the

>>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to create

>>>>>>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>>>>>> new copy while keeping the old one by changing the file

>>>>>>>>>>>>> name. That is

>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of the reasons to sometimes use Save As but by no means

>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most useful IMHO.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is understanding what the Save command does NOT do that

>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the key.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not save the entire file, but only the changes from

>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current

>>>>>>>>>>>>> session. These are not written into the existing file but

>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a new location large enough to hold the changes.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:e$6wHBGuIHA.3780@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But see, if he removes and deletes the file, and then runs

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defrag, there

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be much there to defrag so it will be fast, and then

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when he copies it back *to a freshly defragmented drive*,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it should be stored

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there in contiguous sectors, right?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALSO:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Save as" always stores a contiguous file? And "save"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't? I didn't know that. Do you have some reference

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article on that? (I'm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assuming we're not talking about just overwriting an

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing file when

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Save, which may be different)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter how he does it because a heavily

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fragged drive will

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffer far more wear and tear from head movement than any

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defragging

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation will

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever cause. The easiest tip for reducing fragmentation

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the first

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to avoid using the Save command and stick to Save As.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That way the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new or edited file is always contiguous.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:ej2LRuFuIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably be less and wear and tear (and faster!!) to do

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it the way

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gerry mentioned, however.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try downloading a trial copy of PerfectDisk or

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diskeeper and letting

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it defrag the file. You can uninstall the software

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afterwards. Either

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of those defraggers are excellent at this particular

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of defragging.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ecfYKB8tIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a file that was over 13BG in size and the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows defrag process

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went fine defragging the file per se. However, when

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the defrag process tried

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move this large file it always hung up at 3%. As

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long as the file itself

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was being defragged everything was OK, but when it

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> came to trying

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move this file is where it always hung up.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have a solution to defragging a large

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file of this size

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within Windows XP?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't change the file name, I would think "save as"

>>>>>>>>>>>> would work the

>>>>>>>>>>>> same way as "save." If you do change the file name, yes, I'd

>>>>>>>>>>>> expect a contiguous file to be created. However, Save is a

>>>>>>>>>>>> much faster operation,

>>>>>>>>>>>> Ctrl-S, with no dialog box to fill out.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill

>

May 18, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

<choke></choke> ;)

"Nonny" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:acc134t1l3ualb6kqnu3mmqoduu6v8i793@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:23:22 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst"

> <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:

>

>>The detailed descriptions are in the API calls (I think) which I have

>>never

>>used. As I recall, things like PutFile something or other. I scanned

>>some

>>TechNet stuff once, but not my cup of tea. It is all there but that is

>>not

>>where I first learned about it. Bop over to TechNet and look for a likely

>>forum and ask.

>

> I think this thread has gone far enough. I'm going to kill it here.

> Do you think my default settings to delete the kill after 30 days of

> the thread's disuse will be long enough, or do you think BinCo will

> keep it going into the next millenium? <VBG>

May 19, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

No, I'm talking about the case of using Save As to overwrite the file, just

as you would do with Save. IOW, with the same filename.

Gerry wrote:

> Bill

>

> If you do a Save As you end up with two files when you previously had

> one. You may have two copies of the same file but they will have

> different names and may be in different formats.

>

> --

>

> Hope this helps.

>

> Gerry

> ~~~~

> FCA

> Stourport, England

> Enquire, plan and execute

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>> Save As will always create a complete new file in a new location.

>>

>> No offense, but I don't believe that is true. And so far, you

>> haven't shown any evidence that it is true. It really makes little

>> sense, anyway, when you think about it.

>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Bill

May 19, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

Nonny wrote:

> On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:23:22 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst"

> <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:

>

>> The detailed descriptions are in the API calls (I think) which I have

>> never

>> used. As I recall, things like PutFile something or other. I scanned

>> some

>> TechNet stuff once, but not my cup of tea. It is all there but that is

>> not

>> where I first learned about it. Bop over to TechNet and look for a

>> likely

>> forum and ask.

>

> I think this thread has gone far enough. I'm going to kill it here.

> Do you think my default settings to delete the kill after 30 days of

> the thread's disuse will be long enough, or do you think BinCo will

> keep it going into the next millenium? <VBG>

Oh hell, you must be one of those newagers, with the oh-so-typical limited

attention spans, these days! (Everything has to be in sound bites, or

they can't handle it).

May 19, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

No. Although obviously if the file being rewritten is larger now, it will

take additional locations (and if it's the same filename, it IS being

rewritten in the same place PLUS some)

Colin Barnhorst wrote:

> I think that the complete file is saved in a new location. The overhead

> in

> processing a save in place would be very high.

>

> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message

> news:%23nOLNiTuIHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> Colin

>>

>> What you say about Save As depends on how large the file is and whether

>> the next available free disk space is of sufficient size to accomodate

>> the file.

>>

>> --

>>

>> Hope this helps.

>>

>> Gerry

>> ~~~~

>> FCA

>> Stourport, England

>> Enquire, plan and execute

>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>

>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>> I have been going back and forth with Bill's concern. What point in

>>> your several replies do you mean?

>>>

>>> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>> news:ua3sEFTuIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>> Colin

>>>>

>>>> You have ignored what I said and gone off on a tangent. Please

>>>> respond to the point I made.

>>>>

>>>> ~~~~

>>>>

>>>> Gerry

>>>> ~~~~

>>>> FCA

>>>> Stourport, England

>>>> Enquire, plan and execute

>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>>

>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>> Save As will always create a complete new file in a new location.

>>>>>

>>>>> As far as I know the operation is designed to be quick and be gone,

>>>>> whether Save or Save As. I don't think the file manager messes

>>>>> around with the existing file. There are too many variables and it

>>>>> would take too long. In any case it does not insert data into an

>>>>> existing file. It either saves the changes and updates the file

>>>>> structure data (Save) or it saves a new copy of the file and marks

>>>>> the old for deletion if a new file name, path, or type is not

>>>>> specified (Save As).

>>>>> The Save command is not designed to analyse the file, find an

>>>>> insertion point, open, insert, close, etc. It is a quick and dirty

>>>>> operation.

>>>>> Open uses the links recorded by Save to stitch the file fragments

>>>>> back together in the correct sequence when the file is again called

>>>>> into memory. This sewing machine effect is most noticeable when the

>>>>> drive heads start tracking all over the drive to get all the pieces.

>>>>>

>>>>> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:eHa1rMRuIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> Colin

>>>>>>

>>>>>> What you say about Save As depends on how large the file is and

>>>>>> whether the next available free disk space is of sufficient size to

>>>>>> accomodate the file.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Hope this helps.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Gerry

>>>>>> ~~~~

>>>>>> FCA

>>>>>> Stourport, England

>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute

>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>> Save As saves a contiguous file in a new location. Save saves

>>>>>>> only the changes in a new location.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:%23KEFfrKuIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>> I don't think that's true (that "Save As" saves in a new

>>>>>>>> location, and Save doesn't). In either case, if the file

>>>>>>>> exists, it will be overwritten in the same location(s), to the

>>>>>>>> best of my knowledge (meaning it will be fragmented, too, since

>>>>>>>> the operating system just looks for free clusters). Colin

>>>>>>>> Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Save As doesn't save over it. It saves in a new location

>>>>>>>>> regardless of whether you give it a new filename or not. The

>>>>>>>>> difference is whether or not

>>>>>>>>> the old copy stays (if you give a new name) or is marked for

>>>>>>>>> deletion. "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

>>>>>>>>> message

>>>>>>>>> news:eI$K%23bJuIHA.4876@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I'm pretty certain I was right the first time. There is

>>>>>>>>>> NO difference between using "Save" and "Save As",

>>>>>>>>>> EXCEPT for allowing for a different filename.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> If the file is already there and fragmented, and you save over

>>>>>>>>>> it (either

>>>>>>>>>> way!), it will STAY fragmented.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> If the file isn't there, and you save it, it makes no

>>>>>>>>>> difference which way

>>>>>>>>>> you save it.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> If I'm wrong, show me the site supporting that.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> And the fact that the operating system marks the first cluster

>>>>>>>>>> to indicate

>>>>>>>>>> the file is deleted has nothing to do with this *specific*

>>>>>>>>>> discussion. Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> Save As always saves the whole file. When you confirm usage

>>>>>>>>>>>> of the existing

>>>>>>>>>>>> file name it still writes a fresh, contiguous copy file and

>>>>>>>>>>>> marks the old

>>>>>>>>>>>> one for deletion.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure? And you're also saying that just using SAVE

>>>>>>>>>>> will NOT do that? (in both cases using the same file name of

>>>>>>>>>>> a file that is already

>>>>>>>>>>> on

>>>>>>>>>>> the disk)

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> When you change the filename it writes the new file with

>>>>>>>>>>>> the new name but does not mark the old one for deletion.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> But in both cases above, we're NOT changing the filename.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sharpe" <wfsnopam@adelphia.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ujE4G0GuIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is how the two commands have always worked and why when

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you use the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Save As command you are prompted if the file already exists

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as to whether

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not you want to replace the existing one.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Save command only saves the changes to the file and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saves them in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next available place large enough for the fragment. That

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be anywhere

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the drive. The file manager then records a link and the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next time

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file is read into memory the file system follows the links

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until all of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the file is in memory. That's what causes the heads to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes skip

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all over the place when loading the file and why it takes a

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long time

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a lot of disk activity to load some files.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the file is a series of fragments scattered all over the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive then

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selecting Save As will write a new, contiguous copy in a

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location that

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can hold it, thus eliminating the need for links. The file

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager then

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marks the old pieces as available and the next defrag will

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consolidate

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these pieces of free space into larger contiguous areas

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available for

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writes. In the meantime disk performance improves because

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the drive heads are moving far less, shortening access time

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reducing wear and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tear. There is no downside that I know of to using Save As

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> additional step of confirming the "overwrite". No

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwrite takes place,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of course, since it is a new write. "Overwrite" is just an

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anecdotal

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> descriptor for what really happens.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a very old computer tip that is still valid. If

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you search the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> web though you will see explanations of the difference

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the two

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commands as simply being that Save As offers the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to create

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new copy while keeping the old one by changing the file

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name. That is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of the reasons to sometimes use Save As but by no means

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most useful IMHO.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is understanding what the Save command does NOT do that

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the key.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not save the entire file, but only the changes from

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> session. These are not written into the existing file but

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a new location large enough to hold the changes.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:e$6wHBGuIHA.3780@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But see, if he removes and deletes the file, and then runs

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defrag, there

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be much there to defrag so it will be fast, and then

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when he copies it back *to a freshly defragmented drive*,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it should be stored

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there in contiguous sectors, right?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALSO:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Save as" always stores a contiguous file? And "save"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't? I didn't know that. Do you have some reference

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article on that? (I'm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assuming we're not talking about just overwriting an

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing file when

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Save, which may be different)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter how he does it because a heavily

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fragged drive will

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffer far more wear and tear from head movement than any

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defragging

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation will

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever cause. The easiest tip for reducing fragmentation

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the first

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to avoid using the Save command and stick to Save As.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That way the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new or edited file is always contiguous.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:ej2LRuFuIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably be less and wear and tear (and faster!!) to do

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it the way

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gerry mentioned, however.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try downloading a trial copy of PerfectDisk or

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diskeeper and letting

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it defrag the file. You can uninstall the software

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afterwards. Either

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of those defraggers are excellent at this particular

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of defragging.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ecfYKB8tIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a file that was over 13BG in size and the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows defrag process

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went fine defragging the file per se. However, when

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the defrag process tried

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move this large file it always hung up at 3%. As

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long as the file itself

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was being defragged everything was OK, but when it

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> came to trying

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move this file is where it always hung up.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have a solution to defragging a large

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file of this size

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within Windows XP?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't change the file name, I would think "save as"

>>>>>>>>>>>>> would work the

>>>>>>>>>>>>> same way as "save." If you do change the file name, yes, I'd

>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect a contiguous file to be created. However, Save is a

>>>>>>>>>>>>> much faster operation,

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ctrl-S, with no dialog box to fill out.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill

May 19, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

Colin

That is not the same as what you originally said which was "Save As

saves a contiguous file in a new location. Save saves only the changes

in a new location."

You now omit the word "contiguous" and add "think".

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry

~~~~

FCA

Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Colin Barnhorst wrote:

> I think that the complete file is saved in a new location. The

> overhead in processing a save in place would be very high.

>

> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message

> news:%23nOLNiTuIHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> Colin

>>

>> What you say about Save As depends on how large the file is and

>> whether the next available free disk space is of sufficient size to

>> accomodate the file.

>>

>> --

>>

>> Hope this helps.

>>

>> Gerry

>> ~~~~

>> FCA

>> Stourport, England

>> Enquire, plan and execute

>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>

May 19, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

Bill

Understood.

As an aside at one time (many years ago) you could save a Word file and

get one file size. If you used Save As with the same file the result was

a smaller file size. Save was obviously incremental and Save As was a

new file. This situation changed some time between 10 and 15 years ago.

I am not sure whether it was a Word or operating system update. We are

talking of the era Windows 3.1 and Office 4.3.

--

Regards.

Gerry

~~~~

FCA

Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bill in Co. wrote:

> No, I'm talking about the case of using Save As to overwrite the

> file, just as you would do with Save. IOW, with the same filename.

>

> Gerry wrote:

>> Bill

>>

>> If you do a Save As you end up with two files when you previously had

>> one. You may have two copies of the same file but they will have

>> different names and may be in different formats.

>>

>> --

>>

>> Hope this helps.

>>

>> Gerry

>> ~~~~

>> FCA

>> Stourport, England

>> Enquire, plan and execute

>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>>>> Save As will always create a complete new file in a new location.

>>>

>>> No offense, but I don't believe that is true. And so far, you

>>> haven't shown any evidence that it is true. It really makes

>>> little sense, anyway, when you think about it.

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill

May 19, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

I stand by contiguous.

"Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:u18lXnYuIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Colin

>

> That is not the same as what you originally said which was "Save As

> saves a contiguous file in a new location. Save saves only the changes

> in a new location."

>

> You now omit the word "contiguous" and add "think".

>

> --

>

> Hope this helps.

>

> Gerry

> ~~~~

> FCA

> Stourport, England

> Enquire, plan and execute

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Colin Barnhorst wrote:

>> I think that the complete file is saved in a new location. The

>> overhead in processing a save in place would be very high.

>>

>> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> news:%23nOLNiTuIHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>> Colin

>>>

>>> What you say about Save As depends on how large the file is and

>>> whether the next available free disk space is of sufficient size to

>>> accomodate the file.

>>>

>>> --

>>>

>>> Hope this helps.

>>>

>>> Gerry

>>> ~~~~

>>> FCA

>>> Stourport, England

>>> Enquire, plan and execute

>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>

>

May 19, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

>>>>> Hi:

>>>>>

>>>>> I had a file that was over 13BG in size and the Windows defrag

>>>>> process went fine defragging the file per se. However, when the

>>>>> defrag process tried

>>>>> to move this large file it always hung up at 3%. As long as the

>>>>> file itself

>>>>> was being defragged everything was OK, but when it came to trying

>>>>> to move

>>>>> this file is where it always hung up.

>>>>>

>>>>> Does anyone have a solution to defragging a large file of this

>>>>> size within

>>>>> Windows XP?

>>>>>

>>>>> Thanks

I recently had MS defrag analyze my files. I moved all files that were

in 100 or more fragments to my USB flash drive. I then moved them back

and re-analyzed with the following results:

Run1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fragments File Size Most fragmented files

775 14 MB \Program Files\Alwil Software\Avast4\DATA\avast.int

699 136 MB \Stored\TI118053.ZIP

364 23 MB \Stored\QuickTimeInstaller.zip

357 22 MB \Stored\AdbeRdr812_en_US.zip

183 11 MB \Stored\qtlite-251.zip

174 4 MB \Program Files\Alwil Software\Avast4\DATA\Setup.log

159 702 KB \Utils\IC5\Reports\EXTRARPT.HTM

141 3 MB \Program Files\Alwil Software\Avast4\Setup\setup.log

136 17 MB \Program Files\Common Files\Acronis\ramdisk.dat

134 608 KB \Utils\IC5\Reports\EXTRARPT.CSV

94 6 MB \Stored\RlAlt175.zip

Run 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fragments File Size Most fragmented files

141 3 MB \Program Files\Alwil Software\Avast4\Setup\setup.log

80 5 MB \System Volume

52 3 MB \System Volume

51 19 MB \System Volume

50 9 MB \Program Files\CommonFiles\Fomatik\DiskManager.dll

48 3 MB \Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\plugins\NPSWF32.dll

46 5 MB \Program Files\Common Files\Java\Update\Base

46 11 MB \Program Files\CommonFiles\Acronis\wiper_ramdisk.dat

46 3 MB \Stored\CC207.ZIP

The moved files are now way down the list but not necessarily each in 1

fragment. Avast Antivirus was running which is probably why setup.log

is still in 141 fragments.

This relatively simple process should help with your large file.

HTH,

BoB

May 20, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

Bob

Can we please the top of the Report as well as the Most Fragmented List.

I would be interested in seeing a Disk Defragmenter report. Open Disk

Defragmenter and click on Analyse. Select View Report and

click on Save As and Save. Now find VolumeC.txt in your My Documents

Folder and post a copy. Do this before running Disk Defragmenter as it

is more informative.

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry

~~~~

FCA

Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bob wrote:

>>>>>> Hi:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I had a file that was over 13BG in size and the Windows defrag

>>>>>> process went fine defragging the file per se. However, when the

>>>>>> defrag process tried

>>>>>> to move this large file it always hung up at 3%. As long as the

>>>>>> file itself

>>>>>> was being defragged everything was OK, but when it came to trying

>>>>>> to move

>>>>>> this file is where it always hung up.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Does anyone have a solution to defragging a large file of this

>>>>>> size within

>>>>>> Windows XP?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Thanks

>

> I recently had MS defrag analyze my files. I moved all files that were

> in 100 or more fragments to my USB flash drive. I then moved them back

> and re-analyzed with the following results:

>

> Run1

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Fragments File Size Most fragmented files

> 775 14 MB \Program Files\Alwil

> Software\Avast4\DATA\avast.int 699 136 MB

> \Stored\TI118053.ZIP 364 23 MB

> \Stored\QuickTimeInstaller.zip 357 22 MB

> \Stored\AdbeRdr812_en_US.zip 183 11 MB

> \Stored\qtlite-251.zip 174 4 MB \Program Files\Alwil

> Software\Avast4\DATA\Setup.log 159 702 KB

> \Utils\IC5\Reports\EXTRARPT.HTM 141 3 MB \Program

> Files\Alwil Software\Avast4\Setup\setup.log 136 17 MB

> \Program Files\Common Files\Acronis\ramdisk.dat 134 608 KB

> \Utils\IC5\Reports\EXTRARPT.CSV 94 6 MB

> \Stored\RlAlt175.zip

>

> Run 2

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Fragments File Size Most fragmented files

> 141 3 MB \Program Files\Alwil

> Software\Avast4\Setup\setup.log 80 5 MB \System Volume

> 52 3 MB \System Volume

> 51 19 MB \System Volume

> 50 9 MB \Program Files\CommonFiles\Fomatik\DiskManager.dll

> 48 3 MB \Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\plugins\NPSWF32.dll

> 46 5 MB \Program Files\Common Files\Java\Update\Base

> 46 11 MB \Program

> Files\CommonFiles\Acronis\wiper_ramdisk.dat 46 3 MB

> \Stored\CC207.ZIP

>

> The moved files are now way down the list but not necessarily each in

> 1 fragment. Avast Antivirus was running which is probably why

> setup.log is still in 141 fragments.

>

> This relatively simple process should help with your large file.

>

> HTH,

>

> BoB

May 20, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

On Tue, 20 May 2008 07:21:44 +0100, "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote:

>Bob

>

>Can we please the top of the Report as well as the Most Fragmented List.

>

>I would be interested in seeing a Disk Defragmenter report. Open Disk

>Defragmenter and click on Analyse. Select View Report and

>click on Save As and Save. Now find VolumeC.txt in your My Documents

>Folder and post a copy. Do this before running Disk Defragmenter as it

>is more informative.

Here tis'.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Volume (C:)

Volume size = 229 GB

Cluster size = 4 KB

Used space = 12.44 GB

Free space = 217 GB

Percent free space = 94 %

Volume fragmentation

Total fragmentation = 4 %

File fragmentation = 9 %

Free space fragmentation = 0 %

File fragmentation

Total files = 60,227

Average file size = 250 KB

Total fragmented files = 1,777

Total excess fragments = 6,938

Average fragments per file = 1.11

Pagefile fragmentation

Pagefile size = 1.48 GB

Total fragments = 1

Folder fragmentation

Total folders = 5,536

Fragmented folders = 56

Excess folder fragments = 182

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation

Total MFT size = 68 MB

MFT record count = 65,840

Percent MFT in use = 94 %

Total MFT fragments = 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fragments File Size Most fragmented files

141 3 MB \Program

Files\AlwilSoftware\Avast4\Setup\setup.log

80 5 MB \System Volume

Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP121\A0018508.mfl

52 3 MB \System Volume

Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP122\A0018622.mfl

51 19 MB \System Volume

Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP123\snapshot\_REGISTRY_MACHINE_SOFTWARE

50 9 MB \Program Files\Common

Files\Acronis\Fomatik\DiskManager.dll

48 3 MB \ProgramFiles\MozillaFirefox\plugins\NPSWF32.dll

46 5 MB \Program Files\Common Files\Java\Update\Base

Images\jre1.6.0.b105\patch-jre1.6.0_06.b02\patchjre.exe

46 11 MB \Program Files\Common

Files\Acronis\TrueImageHome\wiper_ramdisk.dat

46 3 MB \Stored\CC207.ZIP

43 15 MB \Program Files\Common

Files\Acronis\TrueImageHome\agent_ramdisk.dat

43 6 MB \Program

Files\Acronis\TrueImageHome\WiperTool.exe

43 10 MB \Program Files\Common Files\Java\Update\Base

Images\jre1.6.0.b105\core2.zip

41 2 MB \Utils\Agents\Freebin\Data\000071AC.DAT

39 2 MB \System Volume

Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP125\A0019150.dll

39 2 MB \System Volume

Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP122\A0018741.dll

39 2 MB \System Volume

Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP125\A0018916.dll

38 3 MB \System Volume

Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP120\A0018387.exe

37 4 MB \Program Files\Common

Files\Acronis\Fomatik\BackupScriptEngine.dll

34 5 MB \Program Files\InstallShield Installation

Information\{B8281D46-D846-4BB9-BC84-F1115A7BF820}\ISSetup.dll

33 5 MB \WINDOWS\Installer\f484e.msi

32 2 MB \System Volume

Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP122\A0018569.mfl

32 3 MB \Hold\FoxIt23\FoxitReader23.zip

31 2 MB \Utils\Agents\Freebin\Data\XPOST.DAT

- - - - - - - - -

BoB

May 20, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

Bob

There is not a lot wrong with your Disk Defragmenter Report. The main

puzzle is the Avast setup.log did you actually move it off disk as the

result suggests not.

I wonder if it would defragment if you ran Disk Defragmenter in Safe

Mode. Has the file changed since it was created? I also wonder how long

you actually need to keep a SetUp log. Not using Avast I do not know the

answer.

My feeling is that if you ran cCleaner and removed restore points

through the More Options tab in Disk CleanUp you should end up with no

fragmented files. If the Avast SetUp log remains fragmented try Safe

Mode,

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry

~~~~

FCA

Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bob wrote:

> On Tue, 20 May 2008 07:21:44 +0100, "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote:

>

>> Bob

>>

>> Can we please the top of the Report as well as the Most Fragmented

>> List.

>>

>> I would be interested in seeing a Disk Defragmenter report. Open

>> Disk Defragmenter and click on Analyse. Select View Report and

>> click on Save As and Save. Now find VolumeC.txt in your My Documents

>> Folder and post a copy. Do this before running Disk Defragmenter as

>> it is more informative.

>

> Here tis'.

>

> - - - - - - - - - - -

> Volume (C:)

> Volume size = 229 GB

> Cluster size = 4 KB

> Used space = 12.44 GB

> Free space = 217 GB

> Percent free space = 94 %

>

> Volume fragmentation

> Total fragmentation = 4 %

> File fragmentation = 9 %

> Free space fragmentation = 0 %

>

> File fragmentation

> Total files = 60,227

> Average file size = 250 KB

> Total fragmented files = 1,777

> Total excess fragments = 6,938

> Average fragments per file = 1.11

>

> Pagefile fragmentation

> Pagefile size = 1.48 GB

> Total fragments = 1

>

> Folder fragmentation

> Total folders = 5,536

> Fragmented folders = 56

> Excess folder fragments = 182

>

> Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation

> Total MFT size = 68 MB

> MFT record count = 65,840

> Percent MFT in use = 94 %

> Total MFT fragments = 3

>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Fragments File Size Most fragmented files

> 141 3 MB \Program

> Files\AlwilSoftware\Avast4\Setup\setup.log

> 80 5 MB \System Volume

> Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP121\A0018508.mfl

> 52 3 MB \System Volume

> Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP122\A0018622.mfl

> 51 19 MB \System Volume

> Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP123\snapshot\_REGISTRY_MACHINE_SOFTWARE

> 50 9 MB \Program Files\Common

> Files\Acronis\Fomatik\DiskManager.dll

> 48 3 MB

> \ProgramFiles\MozillaFirefox\plugins\NPSWF32.dll 46 5 MB

> \Program Files\Common Files\Java\Update\Base

> Images\jre1.6.0.b105\patch-jre1.6.0_06.b02\patchjre.exe 46

> 11 MB \Program Files\Common

> Files\Acronis\TrueImageHome\wiper_ramdisk.dat 46 3 MB

> \Stored\CC207.ZIP 43 15 MB \Program Files\Common

> Files\Acronis\TrueImageHome\agent_ramdisk.dat

> 43 6 MB \Program

> Files\Acronis\TrueImageHome\WiperTool.exe

> 43 10 MB \Program Files\Common Files\Java\Update\Base

> Images\jre1.6.0.b105\core2.zip

> 41 2 MB \Utils\Agents\Freebin\Data\000071AC.DAT

> 39 2 MB \System Volume

> Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP125\A0019150.dll

> 39 2 MB \System Volume

> Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP122\A0018741.dll

> 39 2 MB \System Volume

> Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP125\A0018916.dll

> 38 3 MB \System Volume

> Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP120\A0018387.exe

> 37 4 MB \Program Files\Common

> Files\Acronis\Fomatik\BackupScriptEngine.dll

> 34 5 MB \Program Files\InstallShield Installation

> Information\{B8281D46-D846-4BB9-BC84-F1115A7BF820}\ISSetup.dll

> 33 5 MB \WINDOWS\Installer\f484e.msi

> 32 2 MB \System Volume

> Information\_restore{202550A8-7A33-4BCA-9586-051D24DDBF8F}\RP122\A0018569.mfl

> 32 3 MB \Hold\FoxIt23\FoxitReader23.zip

> 31 2 MB \Utils\Agents\Freebin\Data\XPOST.DAT

> - - - - - - - - -

>

> BoB

May 21, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:09:18 +0100, "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote:

>Bob

>

>There is not a lot wrong with your Disk Defragmenter Report. The main

>puzzle is the Avast setup.log did you actually move it off disk as the

>result suggests not.

>

>I wonder if it would defragment if you ran Disk Defragmenter in Safe

>Mode. Has the file changed since it was created? I also wonder how long

>you actually need to keep a SetUp log. Not using Avast I do not know the

>answer.

>

>My feeling is that if you ran cCleaner and removed restore points

>through the More Options tab in Disk CleanUp you should end up with no

>fragmented files. If the Avast SetUp log remains fragmented try Safe

>Mode,

I don't recall for sure, but I probably copied the Avast file

when I could not move it. But the move back still could not

overwrite it, as expected. I'm not concerned with it. As long

as I can defrag the bad ones, over 100 fragments, I don't bother

with the small ones.

This process just gets me out of waiting for the whole disk to defrag.

BoB

May 21, 2008

Re: Problem Defragging Large File

Bob

The Avast file could be in use or protected, which is why I suggested

running Disk Defragmenter in Safe Mose.

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry

~~~~

FCA

Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bob wrote:

> On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:09:18 +0100, "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote:

>

>> Bob

>>

>> There is not a lot wrong with your Disk Defragmenter Report. The main

>> puzzle is the Avast setup.log did you actually move it off disk as

>> the result suggests not.

>>

>> I wonder if it would defragment if you ran Disk Defragmenter in Safe

>> Mode. Has the file changed since it was created? I also wonder how

>> long you actually need to keep a SetUp log. Not using Avast I do not

>> know the answer.

>>

>> My feeling is that if you ran cCleaner and removed restore points

>> through the More Options tab in Disk CleanUp you should end up with

>> no fragmented files. If the Avast SetUp log remains fragmented try

>> Safe Mode,

>

> I don't recall for sure, but I probably copied the Avast file

> when I could not move it. But the move back still could not

> overwrite it, as expected. I'm not concerned with it. As long

> as I can defrag the bad ones, over 100 fragments, I don't bother

> with the small ones.

>

> This process just gets me out of waiting for the whole disk to defrag.

>

> BoB

Sign In

Problem Defragging Large File

Recommended Posts

Guest Gerry

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest Colin Barnhorst

Guest Colin Barnhorst

Guest Gerry

Guest Gerry

Guest Nonny

Guest Colin Barnhorst

Guest Colin Barnhorst

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Gerry

Guest Gerry

Guest Colin Barnhorst

Guest Bob

Guest Gerry

Guest Bob

Guest Gerry

Guest Bob

Guest Gerry

Similar Content

Large file copies SOOOO SLOWWWWW!

Problems with File Explorer Updates

Large “virus Alert Microsoft Windows infected with Trojan-type spyware”

In File Explorer-How do I make all files in the Pictures folder be defaulted to the ‘Large Icons’ view?

Since Updating to Windows 10, downloads of large files are always interupted, regardless of browser.

Browse

Activity

Site Info