How often should i defrag?

Originally posted by GHayes
and a competitor to SpeedDisk

"NSD can actually move the Meta data files and resize or truncate the MFT during a normal defrag operation"

This is incorrect. NO defragmenter can change the size of the $MFT.
Hi Greg

this is a screen shot of an NTFS drive analyzed by Diskeeper
& defragmented by NSD
Moved - Resized - Truncated
(whatever you wanna call it its now 18meg & at the front)
MyMFT.JPG


after defragging with PerfectDisk
I used diskeeper analysis to see the state of my drive
& there was more fragmented files than when I started
is that right ????

eek2[1].gif
 
don't see how...I do the same, and the anlysis is identical from both programs
 
I believe that what you are possibly referring to isn't the resizing of the $MFT but a reduction in the size of the MFT Reserved Zone. As I mentioned earlier, it is currently not possible for ANYONE to reduce the size of the $MFT. The only way that this can be done is to backup the data, reformat the drive and then restore the data. However, the size of the MFT Reserved Zone certainly can change (the MFT Reserved Zone is represented with Diskeeper by the white with green slashes through it).

When an NTFS partitions is first formatted, it creates the MFT and remainder of the metadata ($Logfile, $Bitmap, $Upcase, etc...). It also creates the MFT Reserved Zone. Depending on which operating system is in use, the MFT is created according to the following:

NT4 - Fixed Size of 12.5% of the partition.
Win2k/WinXP - Dynamically created everytime the partition is mounted and goes from the first record of the $MFT to the first non-free cluster - up to a default max of 12.5% of the partition.

Under NT4 and Win2k, the free space contained inside of the MFT Reserved Zone can NOT be used by defragmenters. Under WinXP, it can.

Under Win2k/WinXP, as soon as the file system puts a file in the Reserved Zone and the partition is remounted (System rebooted), the size of the MFT can shrink from the 12.5% default to something smaller. I believe that this is what you are seeing.

Was this a clean install/format of the NTFS file system under WinXP? If so, then the $MFT should be placed roughly 1/3 of the way into the partition. That is where the file system itself creates it on a clean format - results in a 5-10% performance improvement with the NTFS file system. By placing the MFT at the beginning of the drive, your defragmenter has "robbed you" of this additional performance benefit.

If this was a conversion to WinXP from a previous version of Windows, the $MFT was originally created at the beginning of the drive and your defragmenter has still "robbed you" of this additional performance benefit by not placing the $MFT further into the partition.

- Greg/Raxco Software
 
"after defragging with PerfectDisk
I used diskeeper analysis to see the state of my drive
& there was more fragmented files than when I started
is that right ????"

It depends. As PerfectDisk tries to consolidate free space by packing files tightly together, if there are unmovable clusters scattered around, the PerfectDisk has probably fragmented files around these unmovable clusters.

Did you just perform an online defrag with PerfectDisk? If so, please perform a boot time defrag followed by an online defrag.

- Greg/Raxco Software
 
With all due respect to Mr. Hayes, Diskeeper & PerfectDisk are both fine programs that perform essentially the same functions utilizing slightly different procedures & algorithms. The debate over which tastes better - vanilla or chocolate - obviously depends upon the preference of the individual doing the tasting. Some people (and systems) like DK and some like PD. There is no right or wrong. For that matter, Speed Disk also remains a viable alternative. My opinion - for what it's worth.
 
BTW - in response to the original question in this thread, feel free to defrag as often as you like. In fact, there's an old belief that deframentation and/or surface scanning is actually good for the disk because it "exercises" otherwise unused or rarely used sectors, thus "refreshing" their magnetic state which may diminish with neglect. Who knows?! Regardless, absent a power failure (or some other similar catastrophe) in the middle of the process, disk defragmentation is in no way, shape or form harmful to your disk or system.
 
Originally posted by dealer
don't see how...I do the same, and the anlysis is identical from both programs
Just had a good look at PD - did a boot time defrag - it is a good program ...WOW...
The files reported as fragmented were all .log files which is ok ;)
Originally posted by GHayes
and a competitor to SpeedDisk

the MFT Reserved Zone is represented with Diskeeper by the white with green slashes through it
look at the picture very carefully and you will see the white with green slashes through it.
Its only 18meg so its quite hard to make out.
MyMFT.JPG

Originally posted by GHayes
and a competitor to SpeedDisk

I believe that what you are possibly referring to isn't the resizing of the $MFT but a reduction in the size of the MFT Reserved Zone. As I mentioned earlier, it is currently not possible for ANYONE to reduce the size of the $MFT.
sorry I'm a bit lost with your american english - reduction, truncated and resized all mean the same.
Originally posted by GHayes
and a competitor to SpeedDisk

NT4 - Fixed Size of 12.5% of the partition.
Win2k/WinXP - Dynamically created everytime the partition is mounted and goes from the first record of the $MFT to the first non-free cluster - up to a default max of 12.5% of the partition.
in the same sentence you say fixed & default max how are these parameters considered dynamic ???
Originally posted by GHayes
and a competitor to SpeedDisk

Under Win2k/WinXP, as soon as the file system puts a file in the Reserved Zone and the partition is remounted (System rebooted), the size of the MFT can shrink from the 12.5% default to something smaller. I believe that this is what you are seeing.
sorry greg but as I have already stated NSD reduced - resized it
Originally posted by allan
In fact, there's an old belief that deframentation and/or surface scanning is actually good for the disk because it "exercises" otherwise unused or rarely used sectors, thus "refreshing" their magnetic state which may diminish with neglect.
It is true Allan writing to the disk does magnetize the disk
BUT unless the defragmenter can defragment free space
its of no benefit a normal defrag will only touch accessed areas of the disk & mark the rest as free space

:cool:
 
I believe that what you are possibly referring to isn't the resizing of the $MFT but a reduction in the size of the MFT Reserved Zone.

You're both saying the same thng here, where as the free space would be eliminated within this area.
 
As I stated earlier, it is currently NOT possible to reduce the size of the $MFT itself. The $MFT is a file on the disk. The MFT Reserved Zone is a region of clusters on the drive that is "reserved" to allow the $MFT to grow into.

Is it possible with SD to see the size of the actual $MFT itself? If so, what does SD say is the size of the actual $MFT. If you can't get this information from SD, you can get it from PerfectDisk or Diskeeper.

Add a bunch of files to the drive - until you notice that that actual size of the $MFT itself has grown. Then, defragment with SD and verify the actual size of the $MFT.

Under NT4/Win2k/WinXP, the default max size of the MFT Reserved Zone can be changed via a registry key. If this registry key is missing or the value is set to 1, then the largest that the MFT Reserved Zone is allowed to be is 12.5% of the drive (default max). If it is set to 4, then it is allowed to be 50% of the drive.

Yes, a defragmenter may reduce the size of the MFT Reserved Zone, but no defragmenter is capable of actually reducing the size of the $MFT itself.

- Greg/Raxco Software
 
I use Diskeeper7 and it says it reduces MFT fragments, does it at bootup (if set). It does it too.

Its the BEST defragger IMO.
 
stuy, ghayes is not arguing whether or not mft are derfragmented, rather, he's laying waste the claim that the size of mft itself can be reduced in this fassion...he does suggest that the "zone" for the mtf can be reduced, but not the mtf

also, give the free trial if perfect disc a shot, I think you'll like it better then norton
 
"With all due respect to Mr. Hayes, Diskeeper & PerfectDisk are both fine programs that perform essentially the same functions utilizing slightly different procedures & algorithms. The debate over which tastes better - vanilla or chocolate - obviously depends upon the preference of the individual doing the tasting. Some people (and systems) like DK and some like PD. There is no right or wrong. For that matter, Speed Disk also remains a viable alternative. "

Yes, I agree that defrag programs (while using the same MS provided defrag APIs to "move" files around) actually go about defragmenting using different approaches/algorithms. I also agree that it is a matter of personal taste (do you like single-pass or muli-pass defragmentation, do you like or not like free space consolidation, do you like or not like a file placement strategy, do you want the ability to defragment with low free space available, etc...).

However, if you look at defragmenter from a purely technical viewpoint - what files are they able to defragmenter or not, not all defragmenters are alike. Defragmenters that are unable to perform a boot time defrag (like SpeedDisk, Vopt, Ontrack, Defrag Manager) simply are not able to defragment certain files. Again, whether this is important to a person is a matter of choice and whether they feel that they are getting good value for their $.

- Greg/Raxco Software
 
ghayes;

I'm wondering about the boot time file optimization option available in perfect disc..

I usually encourage users to allow xp to do it's job, as 2nd party performance programs are usually counterproductive, though in the case of perfect disc, I love this product.

so, IYO, could you tell me whether a user is better off letting xp boot optimization, or perfect disc...obviously, in other os's where there is no internal file optimization, perfect disc would do well, but in xp, I wonder.

btw, it's well that this option is turned off by default...good call.

specifically, are the same pameters used for determining which files get placed where, as if differant perameters were used, I'd be wearry
 
Originally posted by TwoZigzagColt45
I tried NSD for a while although it did seem to speed up the box
what I did notice is that certain files were marked as unmovable: -
dll cache, prefetch & temp internet files

NSD can actually move the Meta data files and resize or truncate the MFT during a normal defrag operation.

After running CHKDSK I noticed that NSD was causing damage to the security descriptors on the HD which could cause the drive to become unbootable (albeit rare)

OMG is norton causing those security descriptor problems??? Those kept cropping up and I couldnt figure out why...
 
Posted by GHayes
"However, if you look at defragmenter from a purely technical viewpoint - what files are they able to defragmenter or not, not all defragmenters are alike. Defragmenters that are unable to perform a boot time defrag (like SpeedDisk, Vopt, Ontrack, Defrag Manager) simply are not able to defragment certain files. Again, whether this is important to a person is a matter of choice and whether they feel that they are getting good value for their $.

- Greg/Raxco Software

I believe that's what I said - Diskeeper & PerfectDisk are fine utilities, etc., and beyond that it's personal preferences. I agree SD is in a slightly different category. :)
 
After reading this thread admittedly one of my first for a while I appear to have come quite confused. This thread started with the question - 'How often should I defragment my hdd ?' The answer being - As often as you can, a defrag has never done any harm and if your PC has nothing else to do. I do a defrag about once every 3months as I'm lazy, cannot be bothered and am very appreciative of the performance boost. Believe me though after 3months you can see the difference.:D
As for the MFT which was somehow drifted upon ?
:confused: Resize:confused:
I thought that the MFT resized it's self, to the size needed or deemed by free space. I'm sure the WinXP does not restrict a 4GB+ area of a 40GB hdd as soon as it is installed as when I installed XP the disk space used was 1GB+ not 4GB+
I think that this because the MFT 'resizes' its self dynamically within the parameters 0 to 12.5% of the hdd.
I'm sure that I will be corrected if I'm wrong :D

bad language edited
by TwoZigzagColt45

;)
 
Following link is to Raxco's Knowledge Base and discusses Windows XP/BootVis and Prefetching:

http://www.raxco.com/support/windows/kb_details.cfm?kbid=339

"I thought that the MFT resized it's self, to the size needed or deemed by free space"

Alot of people get confused about this - which is why I've been attempting to explain what the $MFT is and what the MFT Reserved Zone is...

When an NTFS partition is first formatted, the $MFT is created. It is a fixed size - capable of holding a limited number of records/fileids. Adjacent to the $MFT is a section of free clusters that are designated as the MFT Reserved Zone.

As files are created, the number of fileids available for use in the $MFT is reduced. When they run out, the $MFT "grows", expanding into the MFT Reserved Zone. The reason that the MFT Reserved Zone even exists is to provide a section of free space adjacent to the $MFT so that when it grows, hopefully it will grow contiguously (the file system won't put files into the MFT Reserved Zone unless you really get low on free space OUTSIDE of the MFT Reserved Zone).

When you delete a file, that particular fileid isn't immediately re-used. Only after a very large number of files have been created does the file system go back and start re-using fileids - incrementing a sequence number (part of the fileid). For this reason, the $MFT will do nothing but grow and grow and grow - which is why the MFT Reserved Zone is there - to allow the $MFT to grow contiguously. The $MFT can only grow - it can never shrink (the only way is to backup data, reformat and restore data).

Does this help?

- Greg/Raxco Software
 
I've always been a speed disk user, but have been given the opportunity to check out Perfect Disk and I will see if I can write some kind of review :) (with dealer's help of course!)
 
If I may try to explain this more simply (as I believe I mentioned on the first page of this thread) - XP reserves 12% of your drive (regardless of size) for the mft. I believe that's the correct number, wouldn't you agree Mr. Hayes?
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Also Hi EP and people. I found this place again while looking through a oooollllllldddd backup. I have filled over 10TB and was looking at my collection of antiques. Any bids on the 500Mhz Win 95 fix?
Any of the SP crew still out there?
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.

Forum statistics

Threads
62,015
Messages
673,494
Members
5,621
Latest member
naeemsafi
Back