Guest JCO Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is together. If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should use both tools. My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter? Can one tool undermine the other? Thanks
Guest PA Bear [MS MVP] Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag Use one (1) of 'em. JCO wrote: > These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. > Defrag > removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on > the > harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk > (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of > speak) so that all the empty space is together. > > If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you > should > use both tools. > My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter? > Can one tool undermine the other? > > Thanks
Guest db.·.. > Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag use either one at any time because it "really" makes no difference to the "machine". however, what i do recommend is to ensure you do a chkdsk to ensure that the mft reconciles with the file system, before and after defrag-in. -- db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> "JCO" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02... > These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag > removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the > harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk > (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of speak) > so that all the empty space is together. > > If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should > use both tools. > My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter? Can > one tool undermine the other? > > Thanks > >
Guest Big_Al Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag JCO wrote: > These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. > Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data > together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the > HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up > front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is together. > > If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you > should use both tools. > My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it > matter? Can one tool undermine the other? > > Thanks > > First, IMO, the term defrag does not necessarily imply its going to order anything. Defrag is just the process of joining all the segments of a fragmented file into one file on contiguous sectors of the HD. Not necessarily any special place. There are defraggers like O&O defrag that I like that will let you order them by date used, date created, name or just do a fast defrag filling holes. I'm not sure if there is any logic to the built in version in XP. And I truely can't talk about Norton. So when you say Speed Disk does an ordering, and stacks it up front, that's basically the same thing the internal XP one does, maybe not the ordering, I don't know about XP's logic if any. It does pull all the files forward (if you wish to use that term) and leaves the remainder of the drive in the back. I do think however that XP's Defrag does hop around the NTFS MFT files and any unmovable files. Norton might be more bold and move a bit more. I've seen utilities that say they do shuffle and rebuild the registry (which is normally unmovable) and MFT area but I'm not sure I want those things moved on a running system anyway. I think just running XP's defrag would suffice most system maintenance plans.
Guest VanguardLH Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag "JCO" wrote in <news:3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02>: > These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag > removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the > harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk > (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of > speak) so that all the empty space is together. They are both disk defragmenters. They use slightly different criteria as to what is the best scheme to defragment the files. > If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should > use both tools. No. Because each uses different criteria to defragment the file sectors, one will try to defrag one way, the other will undo that defrag (a bit) to do the defrag its way, the first one will undo the other defrag again, and you keep going back and forth undoing some of what the other defragger did. > My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter? > Can one tool undermine the other? Pick one and stick with it. I gave up on SpeedDisk somewhere back in 1999 when it could cause corruption of the file system. They may have fixed that problem but then I gave up on all consumer-grade Norton products back in 2003.
Guest JCO Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag Thanks very much for the info. Issue with the XP Defrag then is that it will only do one drive (partition) at a time. I have 8-partitions so it's nice to set them all to Defrag and go to bed. "VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message news:YdednVpF2YDwldLVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@comcast.com... > "JCO" wrote in <news:3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02>: > >> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. >> Defrag >> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on >> the >> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk >> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of >> speak) so that all the empty space is together. > > They are both disk defragmenters. They use slightly different criteria > as to what is the best scheme to defragment the files. > >> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you >> should >> use both tools. > > No. Because each uses different criteria to defragment the file > sectors, one will try to defrag one way, the other will undo that defrag > (a bit) to do the defrag its way, the first one will undo the other > defrag again, and you keep going back and forth undoing some of what the > other defragger did. > >> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter? >> Can one tool undermine the other? > > Pick one and stick with it. I gave up on SpeedDisk somewhere back in > 1999 when it could cause corruption of the file system. They may have > fixed that problem but then I gave up on all consumer-grade Norton > products back in 2003.
Guest db.·.. > Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag fyi: speed disk actually reorganizes the file system. if i recall, it moves all the system files to the beginning and sorts them alphabetically. but again it really doesn't make a difference to the machine because as you say defrag is simply to clump files together to reduce disk access time. i prefer the windows defrag method myself. -- db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> "Big_Al" <BigAl@MD.com> wrote in message news:%FD3k.6776$3j2.2922@trnddc03... > JCO wrote: >> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag >> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the >> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk >> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of speak) >> so that all the empty space is together. >> >> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should >> use both tools. >> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter? Can >> one tool undermine the other? >> >> Thanks >> >> > > First, IMO, the term defrag does not necessarily imply its going to order > anything. Defrag is just the process of joining all the segments of a > fragmented file into one file on contiguous sectors of the HD. Not necessarily > any special place. There are defraggers like O&O defrag that I like that > will let you order them by date used, date created, name or just do a fast > defrag filling holes. > I'm not sure if there is any logic to the built in version in XP. > And I truely can't talk about Norton. > > So when you say Speed Disk does an ordering, and stacks it up front, that's > basically the same thing the internal XP one does, maybe not the ordering, I > don't know about XP's logic if any. It does pull all the files forward (if > you wish to use that term) and leaves the remainder of the drive in the back. > I do think however that XP's Defrag does hop around the NTFS MFT files and any > unmovable files. Norton might be more bold and move a bit more. I've seen > utilities that say they do shuffle and rebuild the registry (which is normally > unmovable) and MFT area but I'm not sure I want those things moved on a > running system anyway. > > I think just running XP's defrag would suffice most system maintenance plans.
Guest JS Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag I use Norton's Speed Disk (Version 2006) and it does provide an option to order files by: Files First, Files Last and Files at End. But it takes a lot of trial and error to make these options worth using. JS "Big_Al" <BigAl@MD.com> wrote in message news:%FD3k.6776$3j2.2922@trnddc03... > JCO wrote: >> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. >> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data >> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the >> HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up >> front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is together. >> >> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you >> should use both tools. >> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter? >> Can one tool undermine the other? >> >> Thanks >> >> > > First, IMO, the term defrag does not necessarily imply its going to order > anything. Defrag is just the process of joining all the segments of a > fragmented file into one file on contiguous sectors of the HD. Not > necessarily any special place. There are defraggers like O&O defrag that > I like that will let you order them by date used, date created, name or > just do a fast defrag filling holes. > I'm not sure if there is any logic to the built in version in XP. > And I truely can't talk about Norton. > > So when you say Speed Disk does an ordering, and stacks it up front, > that's basically the same thing the internal XP one does, maybe not the > ordering, I don't know about XP's logic if any. It does pull all the > files forward (if you wish to use that term) and leaves the remainder of > the drive in the back. I do think however that XP's Defrag does hop > around the NTFS MFT files and any unmovable files. Norton might be more > bold and move a bit more. I've seen utilities that say they do shuffle > and rebuild the registry (which is normally unmovable) and MFT area but > I'm not sure I want those things moved on a running system anyway. > > I think just running XP's defrag would suffice most system maintenance > plans.
Guest Leythos Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag In article <3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02>, someone@somewhere.com says... > These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag > removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the > harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk > (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of > speak) so that all the empty space is together. > > If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should > use both tools. > My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter? > Can one tool undermine the other? Actually, the pointers remain, that's how the file system works, each cluster points to the next in line for the file to continue. What Defrag attempts to do is make the FILE contiguous so that the r/w heads don't waste time seeking across disk space without reading. Fragmented file (F = File) . = some other file FFF...F......FFFFFFFFF.....FFFF Defragmented .....FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF....... Defragmenting does not always include PACKING the files against each other. -- - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Guest beamish Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 RE: Speed Disk vs Defrag "JCO" wrote: > These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag > removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the > harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk > (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of > speak) so that all the empty space is together. > > If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should > use both tools. > My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter? > Can one tool undermine the other? > > Thanks > > Hello, Do not know if one is better to use then the other. It would seem using one then the other may be doing the job twice, just a little differently. There is a free program. JKDeFrag http://www.kessels.com/jkdefrag/ Smalll, easy to use. It will defrag all drives and partitions. take care. beamish.
Guest VanguardLH Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag "JCO" wrote in <news:YOD3k.4070$8q2.2595@trnddc02>: > Thanks very much for the info. > Issue with the XP Defrag then is that it will only do one drive (partition) > at a time. I have 8-partitions so it's nice to set them all to Defrag and > go to bed. Use the Task Scheduler for that. That's what I do. Schedule an event to run the defrag once per month on each partition. Do NOT have them all running at the same time. For 8 partitions, have them scheduled (only an example): defrag c: - 1st MON of the month defrag d: - 1st TUE of the month defrag e: - 1st WED of the month defrag f: - 1st THU of the month defrag g: - 1st FRI of the month defrag h: - 1st SAT of the month defrag i: - 2nd SUN of the month defrag j: - 2nd MON of the month Have them scheduled to run at, like, 3AM in the morning. Of course, you could write a batch file that used the 'for' command to walk through a series of drive letters and on each loop run the defrag.exe with that drive letter as its parameter, and you could even schedule a single event in Task Scheduler to run that batch file. Depends on how convoluted you want to go: simple with lots of scheduled event, or more complicated with a single schedule event.
Guest Marty Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 RE: Speed Disk vs Defrag "beamish" wrote: > > > "JCO" wrote: > > > These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag > > removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the > > harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk > > (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of > > speak) so that all the empty space is together. > > > > If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should > > use both tools. > > My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter? > > Can one tool undermine the other? > > > > Thanks > > > > > Hello, > Do not know if one is better to use then the other. > It would seem using one then the other may be doing the job twice, just a > little differently. > There is a free program. > JKDeFrag > http://www.kessels.com/jkdefrag/ > Smalll, easy to use. > It will defrag all drives and partitions. > take care. > beamish. I thought that I had my hard drive defragged and everything working just fine until I tried to save a document that I made a couple of changes on while working in Microsoft Word, I got the following messages: "Unrecoverable disk error on file ~WRL1246.tmp. The disk you are working on has a media problem that prevents Word from using it." Also: "Word cannot complete the save due to a file permission error." Since I also lost the file in its entirety (it had previously been successfully saved) I am guessing that these messages mean that I have a hard drive problem and probably need to replace it. Anyone have any other thoughts on the meaning of these error messages? Thanks.
Guest Gerry Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag What extra unwanted baggage comes with Speed Disk? -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JCO wrote: > These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. > Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data > together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover > the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and > stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is > together. > If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you > should use both tools. > My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it > matter? Can one tool undermine the other? > > Thanks
Guest JCO Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag Yes I understand that. I was referring to the pointers from the end of one file to the fragmented file at another location (not cluster pointers). Thanks "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message news:1213149571_5379@news.usenet.com... > In article <3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02>, someone@somewhere.com says... >> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. >> Defrag >> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on >> the >> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk >> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of >> speak) so that all the empty space is together. >> >> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you >> should >> use both tools. >> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter? >> Can one tool undermine the other? > > Actually, the pointers remain, that's how the file system works, each > cluster points to the next in line for the file to continue. > > What Defrag attempts to do is make the FILE contiguous so that the r/w > heads don't waste time seeking across disk space without reading. > > Fragmented file (F = File) . = some other file > FFF...F......FFFFFFFFF.....FFFF > > Defragmented > ....FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF....... > > Defragmenting does not always include PACKING the files against each > other. > > -- > - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. > - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a > drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" > spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Guest Leythos Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag In article <c0%3k.54036$bs3.32277@trnddc07>, someone@somewhere.com says... > Yes I understand that. I was referring to the pointers from the end of one > file to the fragmented file at another location (not cluster pointers). > Thanks My understanding is that file space is allocated in clusters, with sectors being the smallest space in a cluster, that the File Table allocates FILES to Clusters, so the unused space in a cluster is wasted. The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, the FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters point to the next cluster. So, if your file is fragmented or not, if it takes more than one cluster, it's going to have a pointer. In reality, it has a pointer even if it uses a single cluster, but the pointer is more of a code that there is no next cluster. -- - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Guest John John (MVP) Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag Leythos wrote: > In article <c0%3k.54036$bs3.32277@trnddc07>, someone@somewhere.com > says... > >>Yes I understand that. I was referring to the pointers from the end of one >>file to the fragmented file at another location (not cluster pointers). >>Thanks > > > My understanding is that file space is allocated in clusters, with > sectors being the smallest space in a cluster, that the File Table > allocates FILES to Clusters, so the unused space in a cluster is wasted. > > The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, the > FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters > point to the next cluster. That is how it works with FAT/FAT32 but it doesn't work like that at all with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute. Reader may find the following articles informative: INSIDE WINDOWS NT DISK DEFRAGMENTING http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/169/01/17.html NTFS On-Disk Structure http://book.itzero.com/read/microsoft/0507/microsoft.press.microsoft.windows.internals.fourth.edition.dec.2004.internal.fixed.ebook-ddu_html/0735619174/ch12lev1sec6.html John
Guest Leythos Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag In article <#NnCTFJzIHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca says... > Leythos wrote: > > > In article <c0%3k.54036$bs3.32277@trnddc07>, someone@somewhere.com > > says... > > > >>Yes I understand that. I was referring to the pointers from the end of one > >>file to the fragmented file at another location (not cluster pointers). > >>Thanks > > > > > > My understanding is that file space is allocated in clusters, with > > sectors being the smallest space in a cluster, that the File Table > > allocates FILES to Clusters, so the unused space in a cluster is wasted. > > > > The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, the > > FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters > > point to the next cluster. > > That is how it works with FAT/FAT32 but it doesn't work like that at all > with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the > MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual > cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number > to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute. > > Reader may find the following articles informative: > > INSIDE WINDOWS NT DISK DEFRAGMENTING > http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/169/01/17.html > > NTFS On-Disk Structure > http://book.itzero.com/read/microsoft/0507/microsoft.press.microsoft.windows.internals.fourth.edition.dec.2004.internal.fixed.ebook-ddu_html/0735619174/ch12lev1sec6.html There have been a number of times that I've experienced a partition or drive that was deleted using disk manager, and I've been able to fully recover all files - so unless it's caching the MFT someplace other than the drive there must be some way to link each cluster to the next. -- - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag John John (MVP) wrote: > Leythos wrote: > >> In article <c0%3k.54036$bs3.32277@trnddc07>, someone@somewhere.com >> says... >> >>> Yes I understand that. I was referring to the pointers from the end of >>> one >>> file to the fragmented file at another location (not cluster pointers). >>> Thanks >> >> My understanding is that file space is allocated in clusters, with >> sectors being the smallest space in a cluster, that the File Table >> allocates FILES to Clusters, so the unused space in a cluster is wasted. >> >> The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, the >> FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters >> point to the next cluster. > > That is how it works with FAT/FAT32 but it doesn't work like that at all > with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the > MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual > cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number > to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute. That sounds like a more sensible and robust approach, since you don't have to go out and read all the disk clusters to find out where the next one is (and pray that one of them isn't corrupt, breaking the chain). I assume they didn't do this (or couldn't do something like this) for FAT32, due to some inherent limitations tracing back to its legacy and compatibility with FAT16? Like prhaps the limitations of using 16 bit (i.e. two byte) words to store some of this data, or pointers to the data, and all of this dating back to FAT16 and its legacy? > Reader may find the following articles informative: > > INSIDE WINDOWS NT DISK DEFRAGMENTING > http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/169/01/17.html > > NTFS On-Disk Structure > http://book.itzero.com/read/microsoft/0507/ microsoft.press.microsoft.windows.internals.fourth.edition.dec.2004.internal.fixed.ebook-ddu_html/0735619174/ch12lev1sec6.html > > John
Guest Leythos Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag In article <Oq#1ReLzIHA.3968@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, not_really_here@earthlink.net says... > John John (MVP) wrote: > > Leythos wrote: > > > >> In article <c0%3k.54036$bs3.32277@trnddc07>, someone@somewhere.com > >> says... > >> > >>> Yes I understand that. I was referring to the pointers from the end of > >>> one > >>> file to the fragmented file at another location (not cluster pointers). > >>> Thanks > >> > >> My understanding is that file space is allocated in clusters, with > >> sectors being the smallest space in a cluster, that the File Table > >> allocates FILES to Clusters, so the unused space in a cluster is wasted. > >> > >> The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, the > >> FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters > >> point to the next cluster. > > > > That is how it works with FAT/FAT32 but it doesn't work like that at all > > with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the > > MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual > > cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number > > to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute. > > That sounds like a more sensible and robust approach, since you don't have > to go out and read all the disk clusters to find out where the next one is > (and pray that one of them isn't corrupt, breaking the chain). Actually you don't have to read ALL of anything - just the first one and then it links to the next one, it's not like you have to read them all just to know the file name or the size. > I assume they didn't do this (or couldn't do something like this) for FAT32, > due to some inherent limitations tracing back to its legacy and > compatibility with FAT16? Like prhaps the limitations of using 16 bit > (i.e. two byte) words to store some of this data, or pointers to the data, > and all of this dating back to FAT16 and its legacy? I still, after reading the links, don't see where ever cluster ID is mapped in a file and what file name it's linked too. -- - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Guest John John (MVP) Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag Leythos wrote: > In article <#NnCTFJzIHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca > says... > >>Leythos wrote: >> >> >>>In article <c0%3k.54036$bs3.32277@trnddc07>, someone@somewhere.com >>>says... >>> >>> >>>>Yes I understand that. I was referring to the pointers from the end of one >>>>file to the fragmented file at another location (not cluster pointers). >>>>Thanks >>> >>> >>>My understanding is that file space is allocated in clusters, with >>>sectors being the smallest space in a cluster, that the File Table >>>allocates FILES to Clusters, so the unused space in a cluster is wasted. >>> >>>The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, the >>>FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters >>>point to the next cluster. >> >>That is how it works with FAT/FAT32 but it doesn't work like that at all >>with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the >>MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual >>cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number >>to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute. >> >>Reader may find the following articles informative: >> >>INSIDE WINDOWS NT DISK DEFRAGMENTING >>http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/169/01/17.html >> >>NTFS On-Disk Structure >>http://book.itzero.com/read/microsoft/0507/microsoft.press.microsoft.windows.internals.fourth.edition.dec.2004.internal.fixed.ebook-ddu_html/0735619174/ch12lev1sec6.html > > > There have been a number of times that I've experienced a partition or > drive that was deleted using disk manager, and I've been able to fully > recover all files - so unless it's caching the MFT someplace other than > the drive there must be some way to link each cluster to the next. No, NTFS does not "daisy-chain" clusters! It's all held in the file attributes within the MFT. The MFT has a mirror for error recoverability, the location of both of those is held in the boot sector. In addition to those there is a log file that is used for file recovery. John
Guest Leythos Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag In article <#sHjHjMzIHA.5852@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca says... > Leythos wrote: > > > In article <#NnCTFJzIHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca > > says... [snip] > > No, NTFS does not "daisy-chain" clusters! It's all held in the file > attributes within the MFT. The MFT has a mirror for error > recoverability, the location of both of those is held in the boot > sector. In addition to those there is a log file that is used for file > recovery. I'm not really arguing with you, but what happens to the MFT when you delete a partition and it's the ONLY partition on a disk? The reason I ask is that I've had a Drive improperly managed and a new admin broke the array (soft) and then deleted the partitions, didn't format, just deleted the partitions - so, it showed the entire drive as unused. I was able to use an old program called Undelete to recover all the files - although they were named recoveredfile001. (and proper extension). I'm just wondering - that's all. -- - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Guest John John (MVP) Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag Bill in Co. wrote: >>>The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, the >>>FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters >>>point to the next cluster. >> >>That is how it works with FAT/FAT32 but it doesn't work like that at all >>with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the >>MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual >>cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number >>to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute. > > > That sounds like a more sensible and robust approach, since you don't have > to go out and read all the disk clusters to find out where the next one is > (and pray that one of them isn't corrupt, breaking the chain). That is not really how it works, (on FAT) the clusters are daisy-chained in the FAT, the operating system doesn't open successive clusters to find out where the next one is, it reads that information in the FAT. The first cluster information for the file is found in the Directory entry and the other cluster information along with the last cluster is read from the FAT. In any case, if a cluster in the chain is corrupt the whole file is usually unreadable or corrupt anyway, chkdsk can locate and try to repair these bad clusters but most of the time the recovered clusters are of much use and the corrupt files are not easily, if at all repairable. John
Guest Twayne Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag > These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. > Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data > together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover > the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and > stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is > together. > If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you > should use both tools. > My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it > matter? Can one tool undermine the other? > > Thanks Since they use two different methodologies, each will cause the other to have a lot of defrag work to do. In general, in my case at least, I've found that Speed Disk gives me the longest lasting tiem between needs to defrag. Run defrag multiple times and the latter times will go quickly; same with speed disk. Run one then the other and you'll be waiting every single time. IF you have speed disk and it works well for you, especially if you use any of its most useful features that defrag doesn't have, you're ahead of the game. If you're "just a user" then it's not going to matter much. But, pick one and stay with it. HTH
Guest Twayne Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag > JCO wrote: >> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. >> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data >> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover >> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and >> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is >> together. If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems >> that you >> should use both tools. >> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it >> matter? Can one tool undermine the other? >> >> Thanks >> >> > > First, IMO, the term defrag does not necessarily imply its going to > order anything. Defrag is just the process of joining all the > segments of a fragmented file into one file on contiguous sectors of > the HD. Not necessarily any special place. There are defraggers like > O&O > defrag that I like that will let you order them by date used, date > created, name or just do a fast defrag filling holes. > I'm not sure if there is any logic to the built in version in XP. > And I truely can't talk about Norton. > > So when you say Speed Disk does an ordering, and stacks it up front, > that's basically the same thing the internal XP one does, maybe not > the ordering, I don't know about XP's logic if any. It does pull all > the files forward (if you wish to use that term) and leaves the > remainder of the drive in the back. I do think however that XP's > Defrag does hop around the NTFS MFT files and any unmovable files. > Norton might be more bold and move a bit more. I've seen utilities > that say they do > shuffle and rebuild the registry (which is normally unmovable) and MFT > area but I'm not sure I want those things moved on a running system > anyway. > I think just running XP's defrag would suffice most system maintenance > plans. You're absolutely right; XPs defrag is fine and there's no reason to avoid it. Speed Disk is a little better and does allow you to put your choice of files first, middle, last, next to last, or combinations of those, on the disk. For one who knows what files he works on the most and which cause the most fragmantation to occur, those features can be very handy. Those same features in the hands of a non-thinking inxperienced person though can slow the machine down as much or more than normal fragmentation does. Example: Putting all Word docs on the outer tracks and all temp and .BAK docs on the inner tracks just outside the system area, would cause a LOT of disk seeking/thrashing every time you press a key! So, it's like most other things; use your head and know what they do, then follow the mfgr's advice wherever possible unless you are certain you know better. HTH
Guest Twayne Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Re: Speed Disk vs Defrag > "JCO" wrote in <news:YOD3k.4070$8q2.2595@trnddc02>: > >> Thanks very much for the info. >> Issue with the XP Defrag then is that it will only do one drive >> (partition) at a time. I have 8-partitions so it's nice to set them >> all to Defrag and go to bed. > > Use the Task Scheduler for that. That's what I do. Schedule an event > to run the defrag once per month on each partition. Do NOT have them > all running at the same time. For 8 partitions, have them scheduled > (only an example): > > defrag c: - 1st MON of the month > defrag d: - 1st TUE of the month > defrag e: - 1st WED of the month > defrag f: - 1st THU of the month > defrag g: - 1st FRI of the month > defrag h: - 1st SAT of the month > defrag i: - 2nd SUN of the month > defrag j: - 2nd MON of the month > > Have them scheduled to run at, like, 3AM in the morning. Of course, > you could write a batch file that used the 'for' command to walk > through a series of drive letters and on each loop run the defrag.exe > with that drive letter as its parameter, and you could even schedule > a single event in Task Scheduler to run that batch file. Depends on > how convoluted you want to go: simple with lots of scheduled event, > or more complicated with a single schedule event. But speed disk will do all that pretty much automagically for you. And monthly isn't always a good schedule. Some drives need it more often, others less often. I find it very useful, actually, the way SD implement it. Unfortunately I'm a video editor so the amount of fragmentation can be pretty important to me when I have to defrag a drive two or sometimes three times in a day (after each session) to keep things zipping along. Once you get used to it, speed disk can work faster and more efficiently than defrag but, like I said, defrag is also perfectly acceptable when it's what you have available. I also find that defragging in the background adds a lot of time between needing defrags, too. Speed Disk implemented that well and you never notice it having to pause anything so you can start using the system again. The inactive period before background defrag kicks in is also adjustable. And with either method, it's important to know how to tell whether you really need to defrag or not. If the fragments are in files you never use, the defrag can still wait, for example. And I didn't mean to say schedules arean't useful; they definitely ARE, and monthly is a good middle of the road schedule to keep the defragging times reasonable. The more fragmented a drive becomes, the longer it takes to defrag it; especially the larger drives if you have partitions over say 80 Gig. For this and other easons I try to keep my partitions at 40 to 80 Gigs each. HTH
Recommended Posts