Is windows xp sp3 defrag

[alphaomega]

I went to defrag a drive yesterday and only one large file was fragmented (4 fragments).I defragged the drive and it took forever (close to 4 hours).The defrag program's status line indicated that is was moving a bunch of other files that were not even fragmented but as far as I could tellnothing looked like it was being moved (visually).And at the end of the defrag it gave me a message aboutnot being able to defrag some files (and it was the same fragmented file).I've run the drive manufacturer's disk diagnostic program and it did not indicate any problems with the drive.Any thoughts?I wonder if this has anything to do with me losing e and o with acute, grave, and umlaut characters?Thanks in advance.Cheers

[zlim]

I don't run the built in defragger. After trying a few, I stuck with Puran defrag.http://majorgeeks.com/Puran_Defrag_Free_Edition_d6360.htmlIt seems fairly fast. The movement of files is to speed up things. Noting what you use most, it puts these where they can be accessed faster.

I wonder if this has anything to do with me losing e and o with acute, grave, and umlaut characters?

defragging would not cause something like that.

[alphaomega]

@Zlim, Thanks for the input. I'll look into Puran defrag.And I didn't think the defrag would have caused the problem...it's just that is the only thing I did right before I noticed the problem. And I had defragged before without the problem occurring.And pretty much the only thing I do in windows is update.Except for the occasional document/pic scan on an old brother printer or the tagging of an mp3file, windows is barely used.I just found it odd that the built in defrag program was apparently (according to the status line) moving all those files that werenot fragmented (only one file was fragmented).I expected it to just defrag the one file.The files on that drive have not changed in quite a while except for one new mp3 file (140mb).

[goretsky]

Hello,From what I recall, Windows XP's built-in disk defragmentation utility was written by Diskeeper Software (formerly Executive Software) for Microsoft. It perform a very basic defragmentation. It could be that it was moving files around on the disk volume to create enough empty space so it could defragment the large file. I have noticed that this utility sometimes has to be run a second or even a third time to completely defragment a disk.Regards,Aryeh Goretsky

[alphaomega]

Hello,From what I recall, Windows XP's built-in disk defragmentation utility was written by Diskeeper Software (formerly Executive Software) for Microsoft. It perform a very basic defragmentation. It could be that it was moving files around on the disk volume to create enough empty space so it could defragment the large file. I have noticed that this utility sometimes has to be run a second or even a third time to completely defragment a disk.Regards,Aryeh Goretsky

The disk drive is an old 4gb drive with only my music collection on it.It has 3gb free so there should have been plenty of room to defrag the file.Unless it was determined to put the one file before a bunch of others.And even then, it did not defrag the file in question.I ended up deleting the file and copying it back over and a defrag wasno longer needed as the one file was no longer fragmented (like the rest of the drive).Cheers.

[Tushman]

@Zlim, Thanks for the input. I'll look into Puran defrag.And I didn't think the defrag would have caused the problem...it's just that is the only thing I did right before I noticed the problem. And I had defragged before without the problem occurring.And pretty much the only thing I do in windows is update.Except for the occasional document/pic scan on an old brother printer or the tagging of an mp3file, windows is barely used.I just found it odd that the built in defrag program was apparently (according to the status line) moving all those files that werenot fragmented (only one file was fragmented).I expected it to just defrag the one file.The files on that drive have not changed in quite a while except for one new mp3 file (140mb).

As dismal Windows defrag utility may be, it wouldn't defrag just 1 file & quit. It simply doesn't work that way. Everytime the system is used, there are files being moved around. Any read/write sequence can move the system files to a new sector or cluster. Whether it was just 1 MP3 file or 100, it doesn't matter - there's always going to be some shuffling going on in the background.Although 4 hours is a bit long, the windows built-in defragger has never (I say NEVER) really been efficient or thorough since the old Win9.X days.

[burninbush]

Although 4 hours is a bit long, the windows built-in defragger has never (I say NEVER) really been efficient or thorough since the old Win9.X days.

True that. However, if ghost.exe is available, just make an image of the partition, and then immediately restore from the image just created. It'll be nearly*** perfectly defragged, but won't take nearly as long, since nothing has to be moved. And you'll have a fresh backup. I'm guessing that any image backup & restore would work the same. *** in my use it doesn't achieve visual perfection, but this may be due to having to load some stuff in particular locations per windows rules? Dunno.

[zlim]

About Puran, this is worth a mention...at another board someone posted he is having problems with the latest version of Puran defrag, 7.3.I'm still running 7.1 and programs like that, if they cause me no problem, I rarely keep checking for updates.I believe he removed it and installed 7.2 again. I'll check my facts later and if anything needs editing, I'll do it.

[Tushman]

True that. However, if ghost.exe is available, just make an image of the partition, and then immediately restore from the image just created. It'll be nearly*** perfectly defragged, but won't take nearly as long, since nothing has to be moved. And you'll have a fresh backup. I'm guessing that any image backup & restore would work the same. *** in my use it doesn't achieve visual perfection, but this may be due to having to load some stuff in particular locations per windows rules? Dunno.

LOL. Oh wow.... Using Norton Ghost has nothing to do with it. Imaging applications like Ghost all use a compression algorithm to when creating the image. So what you *think* you are backing up is not a perfectly defragged state of files within the image file. because the compression engine doesn't care if those files were perfectly defragged or not. The compression algorithm wasn't designed to understand sector based rules that way. Furthermore, that image has to decompressed during the restore operation so files will never be in the same place. I don't care if you try to defrag the hard drive a million times before you create the backup image - you will not get "perfection" that way. Ghost doesn't care if a particular file gets restored to the same sector where it originally was or even if the same group of files are placed sequentially. Ghost is a "imaging" application - not a "we'll predict how you would like this file defragged" program. Edited July 4, 2011 by Tushman

[burninbush]

Ghost doesn't care if a particular file gets restored to the same sector where it originally was or even if the same group of files are placed sequentially. Ghost is a "imaging" application - not a "we'll predict how you would like this file defragged" program.

??? No, I'm aware that files won't go back into the same places, the goal of the operation was to fix the fact they were spread-out. But when restored files and directories will be contiguous, as nearly as they can be. Run it in files mode, not bitmap image. I'm quite satisfied with the result from that. I s'pose if a person felt it necessary you could run a standard defragger on the result, might still be quicker than starting from scratch.

[Tushman]

But when restored files and directories will be contiguous, as nearly as they can be. Run it in files mode, not bitmap image.

I've used Norton Ghost and this the first time I've heard of "files mode" versus bitmap image. What in the world is that?

[crp]

check out Contig from the Microsoft sysinternalshttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897428

[burninbush]

I've used Norton Ghost and this the first time I've heard of "files mode" versus bitmap image. What in the world is that?

It's the standard mode of Ghost. If you really want a perfect image of a partition, restored as it existed before you ran ghost, then one of the options is to use bitmap mode. This is somewhat important for linux, for example, wherein grub and lilo might require their stage2 portions to be located at an exact sector location [offset] on the disk. If you will pay attention to ghost when either backing or restoring you'll see that it is moving files, not just sectors. It absolutely will not backup or restore unallocated sectors unless you force it with bitmap mode. You can even restore to a partition smaller than the one you imaged, so long as it is big enough to hold the data. So I guess the confusion might be with the term "image" -- a ghost restore will not normally be a mirror image of the partition before you made the 'ghost image'. Now, there may be some preferred location or order of files placement on the windows partition, that a defragger would respect differently than ghost does it during a restore -- I dunno about that, but have never had one single issue from ghost's standard restore. If you run a defragger immediately after a ghost restore you'll see that the empty space is now mostly all in a block at the end of the partition. I've always guessed that the bits that are not contiguous were scratch areas used by ghost. They'll be very small though, and typically it'll look more defragged than after a standard defragger run finishes.My experience is with ghost 6.0 pro, ghost-pe, and ghost 8.2. The latter I think is after Symantec, but it works much the same as the older versions.

[alphaomega]

check out Contig from the Microsoft sysinternalshttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897428

Thanks for the link. Nice find.I'll try using it if the problem occurs again.I have no idea why this one time the defrag took all that time to defrag one file(and it didn't even actually defrag the file anyway).I ended up deleting the file and copying it over again.And defrag's analyze drive now shows the drive as being completely defragged (no fragments).Defrag on this drive usually takes only a couple of minutes as the drivegets very little write use. I only add maybe one or two tracks every three months. And the drive is only used to store my music collectionwhich has already been organized, tagged, and defragged.Cheers

[Tushman]

I have no idea why this one time the defrag took all that time to defrag one file(and it didn't even actually defrag the file anyway).

I have tried to explain this previously, let me phrase it in a different way.Everytime you use computer there are some files that will get moved around. And yes that does include system files. Just because you added only 1 MP3 file since you last used that computer doesn't mean necessarily mean the operating system is going to just defrag that one single MP3 file. It just does not work that way. Each defrag program uses a different algorithm to to defrag files. How much a hard drive is considered to be "fragmented" and HOW it defragments those files is going to depend on the algorithm of the program.As far as the length of time that it took - once again it all depends on the defrag program used. The built-in Windows Defragger was never that good to begin and has never been really improved apart from copying Diskeeper's version.

[alphaomega]

I have tried to explain this previously, let me phrase it in a different way.Everytime you use computer there are some files that will get moved around. And yes that does include system files. Just because you added only 1 MP3 file since you last used that computer doesn't mean necessarily mean the operating system is going to just defrag that one single MP3 file. It just does not work that way. Each defrag program uses a different algorithm to to defrag files. How much a hard drive is considered to be "fragmented" and HOW it defragments those files is going to depend on the algorithm of the program.As far as the length of time that it took - once again it all depends on the defrag program used. The built-in Windows Defragger was never that good to begin and has never been really improved apart from copying Diskeeper's version.

And I have read your explanation and understand what you wrote.I know that "Everytime you use computer there are some files that will get moved around. And yes that does include system files.".But the drive in question is separate from the drive holding the operating system. There are no programs installed on that drive.The only thing on the drive is mp3 files that are already organized and tagged.I can go months and months without having to defrag the drive because nothing happens to the drive(and I check the defrag status once a month when the updates come out).I routinely have to defrag the drive which holds the operating system.I rarely have to defrag the drive in question unless I put something new on the drive.So are you trying to convince me that although there are only mp3s files on the driveand I am not moving them or tagging them that they are going to possibly be movedjust because I am using the computer?Because that has not been my experience with this drive. Edited July 6, 2011 by alphaomega

[Tushman]

So are you trying to convince me that although there are only mp3s files on the driveand I am not moving them or tagging them that they are going to possibly be movedjust because I am using the computer?Because that has not been my experience with this drive.

alphaomega,If you're defragging a HDD that only contains personal data that doesn't change much, I can understand why you were puzzled as to long period of time it took to defrag. In your original posting (or your posting from this afternoon for that matter) not once did you mention that you were saving the MP3 file to a separate hard drive or to another partition. Leaving out minor details like that does change the picture a bit and I wouldn't have bothered to type out my previous explanation if you had stated that upfront.Defragging a hard drive with the windows built-in defragger just once is often insufficient to get any good results. Even it is just a data hard drive without the OS. You have to run multiple passes. IN another words, defrag the HDD and keep defragging it until the total time it takes is just a few seconds. It's possible that you're seeing the long defrag times because it didn't do a very thorough job the 1st time around. Edited July 7, 2011 by Tushman

[alphaomega]

alphaomega,Leaving out minor details like that does change the picture a bit and I wouldn't have bothered to type out my previous explanation if you had stated that upfront.

In my defense, I may not have mentioned it in my original post but I did allude to that fact in post #3 when I wrote:

The files on that drive have not changed in quite a whileexcept for one new mp3 file (140mb).

And I probably wouldn't have bothered to type out my previous explanation had you not written:

I have tried to explain this previously, let me phrase it in a different way.

Okay shoot me, I left out some details. But you could have just as easily asked for clarification before you decided to STN (at least that is the way your message came across to me). Edited July 7, 2011 by alphaomega

[Tushman]

Okay shoot me, I left out some details. But you could have just as easily asked for clarification before you decided to STN (at least that is the way your message came across to me).

The way I see it, it is incumbent upon the OP to provide as much details or clarity upfront so that he or she gets the best solution or most plausible explanation rather than asking the people that desire to help play guessing games.And honestly, what is your problem with my previous statement?

And I probably wouldn't have bothered to type out my previous explanation had you not written:

This is indicative of the fact that i had tried to rephrase my explanation to you as politely as possible and you still decide to pout your lips over it. Well it must suck to be you man. Sorry but if that little statement threw you in to a little tizzy, I have no fix for that. Edited July 7, 2011 by Tushman

[alphaomega]

And honestly, what is your problem with my previous statement?

Honestly, It came across as if you were insulted at having to explain yourself again.As if I either did not read your response or was too stupid to understand.But I can see by your response there is probably some truth in that statement.

[Tushman]

Honestly, It came across as if you were insulted at having to explain yourself again.As if I either did not read your response or was too stupid to understand.But I can see by your response there is probably some truth in that statement.

I work as tech support for a large corporation so I am used to explaining stuff once, twice or even thrice. One thing I try not to do is make assumptions about a person's level of "tech" knowledge. If a user doesn't understand me the 1st time, I slow things down and make it as simple as possible to understand. So if I seemed condescending in my explanation it is because I try to break it down to it's simplest form without getting overly technical.If you had come back to the thread and said something to the effect: Ok, I've read your explanation but I still don't understand because this HDD contains data only (with no OS), then I would have re-thought my response to you. (well eventually I did anyway after finding out about the tidbit detail).And sorry that I missed your post earlier when you mentioned that the MP3 file in question was on a non-OS hard drive. Sometimes when the thread starts to get long, I will remember the original post and tend to just skim over the subsequent responses.My recommendation would be try Puran defrag mentioned by Zlim or My Defrag which is what I use on my Win 7 system. Edited July 7, 2011 by Tushman

[alphaomega]

I work as tech support for a large corporation so I am used to explaining stuff once, twice or even thrice. One thing I try not to do is make assumptions about a person's level of "tech" knowledge. If a user doesn't understand me the 1st time, I slow things down and make it as simple as possible to understand. So if I seemed condescending in my explanation it is because I try to break it down to it's simplest form without getting overly technical.If you had come back to the thread and said something to the effect: Ok, I've read your explanation but I still don't understand because this HDD contains data only (with no OS), then I would have re-thought my response to you. (well eventually I did anyway after finding out about the tidbit detail).And sorry that I missed your post earlier when you mentioned that the MP3 file in question was on a non-OS hard drive. Sometimes when the thread starts to get long, I will remember the original post and tend to just skim over the subsequent responses.My recommendation would be try Puran defrag mentioned by Zlim or My Defrag which is what I use on my Win 7 system.

No harm no foul. I used to work tech support myself and is it is definitely not my forte.I obviously misconstrued what you wrote and I apologize for that.Although I do beleive it could have been handled better without the need for insults.

Well it must suck to be you man.