Reserved System Space

Thanks. The reason I asked was because the article you directed my attention to, this one, was talking about 'oformat' this and 'cvtarea' that.

I did do a full format at installation and haven't had a hiccup in ntfs... i'm absolutely sold on it. I have to admit... it is a bit intimidating to start with... that whole bit of not being able to boot right to a floppy and access the drive concerns (actually moot now that I know I can do just that with ntfspro).

*me rambles* thanks again. :D
 
1. Speed disk - wouldn't use it on a bet... Diskeeper 7 all the way - if it works to my satisfaction why mess with success type thing.

2. Windocter - a pretty registry cleaner... nothing more. I prefer the System Mechanic Suite MUCH better... it behaves itself (runs when i say run instead of having crap going on in the background).

3. My opinion - :p
 
<<<<< been using Diskeeper 7 for the last 6 x months think its great very quick does a nice clean job - Tried speed disk yesterday its very slow & it doesnt defrag all the files according to Diskeeper it missed 10 files - gave it chance anyhow, straight away noticed a difference in the time it took the desktop to load, very quick, cant see any difference once windows is loaded. & like Diskeeper it has an entry in services. The only difference being that when installed Diskeeper is set Automatic & Speed disc is set to Manual.
As for WinDoctor its a lot more than a pretty registry cleaner

:rolleyes: :p
 
For some reason, each time I defrag with Diskeeper, the MFT and the reserved zone keep getting pushed further away into the partition, and other files are being pushed before the MFT. It seems to be reversing everything that Speed Disk did!!

I agree Diskeeper is MUCH MUCH faster than Speed Disk, but why is it pushing software files before the MFT?? Shouldn't the MFT be the first thing on the partition?

I think Diskeeper is really good ... and it was the first time I used Speed Disk ... but Speed Disk actually did a good job at speeding up my boot-up, and Diskeeper seems to be reversing the changes and slowing it down all over again!

I'm confused :confused:
 
$ms propoganda

In Windows 2000 and earlier versions of Windows NT, the MFT was typically placed at the start of the disk space available to the file system. In Windows XP, the NTFS format utilities place the MFT 3 GB further into the disk space, which has been found to improve system performance by 5 to 10 percent.

www.pcguide.com

For Windows NT, you will need to use a third-party program, one of the most popular being the Diskeeper program by Executive Software. In its wisdom, Microsoft decided to license the Diskeeper defragmenter technology and include it in Windows 2000, so the operating system now includes a built-in defragmenter, though it is likely either less capable or slower than the full Diskeeper program sold by Executive Software.
 
Diskeeper v Perfectdisk

Greg -

What are the advantages/disadvantages of perfectdisk v diskeeper? :)

Thanks, Jan
 
Jan,

Sorry for the delay. I was out of the office last week...

Differences between PD and DK.

- PD is a one pass defragmenter. DK can take multiple passes - which means that your defragmentation issue may or may not be resolved. There is no technical reason it can't be done in a single pass.

- PD consolidates free space. DK may not. If free space isn't consolidated, then future files may be created fragmented. Again, there isn't a technical reason why free space can't be consolidated.

- PD is the only defragmenter that defragments ALL of the metadata. DK defragments the $MFT and says that it is defragmenting metadata during it's boot time defrag, but how do you know it is doing anything as DK doesn't even provide stats on how badly fragmented the $Logfile or $Bitmap is?

- MS places the $MFT further into the partition to achieve a 5-10% performance improvement on NTFS partitions. PD makes sure that the $MFT remains in this location.

Just a few things that make PD different...

- Greg/Raxco Software

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Sofwtare, the maker of PerfectDisk - a commercial defrag utility and a competitor to Diskeeper, as a systems engineer in the support department.
 
"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Windows 2000 and earlier versions of Windows NT, the MFT was typically placed at the start of the disk space available to the file system. In Windows XP, the NTFS format utilities place the MFT 3 GB further into the disk space, which has been found to improve system performance by 5 to 10 percent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"

Not MS propoganda...

Microsoft did a lot of research into improving file system and I/O performance with Windows XP. What did this research result in?

- Using I/O overlapping with booting the system.
- A recognition that fragmentation is one of the leading causes of slow I/O performance.
- A recognition that a fragmented $MFT isn't the best for performance (something that commercial defrag products have been helping to resolve for years).


"For Windows NT, you will need to use a third-party program..."

As I mentioned earlier, the PCGuide site really needs to be updated to reflect current times/operating systems/utilities :)

- Greg/Raxco Software
 
sorry Greg but I have to disagree with you on a couple of points. M$ not renowned for honesty & up to date information & quite often totally ignoring problems with their software, so I generally take what they say with a pinch of salt, unless its claims are backed up by other sources.
PD is a one pass defragmenter. DK can take multiple passes - which means that your defragmentation issue may or may not be resolved. There is no technical reason it can't be done in a single pass.
Diskeeper is the only defragger that I have used that reports that all files have been defragmented, Unlike Norton Speed Disk that normally leaves around 10 fragmented files.
MS places the $MFT further into the partition to achieve a 5-10% performance improvement on NTFS partitions.
Since using Norton Speed Disk which has now placed the free system space & MFT zone to the front of the disk my system performance has increased.
 
"M$ not renowned for honesty & up to date information"

I would agree that MS isn't the best company regarding certain things :) However, the document that I referred to is a publically available document. Raxco knows very well the person at Microsoft in charge of the file system and have worked closely with this person for many years and have followed the changes in the file system. Placing the $MFT further into the partition does indeed provide a little performance boost. When you first format an NTFS partition, the format utility places the $MFT further into the partition - you can't change where it puts it even if you wanted to.


"Diskeeper is the only defragger that I have used that reports that all files have been defragmented"

But is Diskeeper really providing correct information? For example, DK may report that all files are defragmented. However, Diskeeper doesn't defragment the non-$MFT metadata (like the $Logfile and $Bitmap). However, you wouldn't necessarily know this because Diskeeper doesn't provide statistics on how badly fragmented these files are. As a matter of fact, Diskeeper will show the $MFT as being in 2 pieces - even if it is actually in 1 piece. Why? Because Diskeeper considers the $MFTMirr as a fragment of the $MFT - even though it is a separate file.


"placed the free system space & MFT zone to the front of the disk my system performance has increased."

What tool are you using to measure the performance improvement from placing the $MFT at the beginning of the logical partition and what were the baseline results prior to moving the MFT there?

- Greg/Raxco Software
 
Somehow, Speed Disk works very differently from any other defragmenting software.

Diskeeper seems to (slowly but steadily) reverse all changes made by Speed Disk.
I think my problem of a fragmented MFT arose bcoz I converted from FAT32 to NTFS (rather than a clean format)

I wanted a defragmenter that could consolidate the MFT files. Diskeeper'd boot time defrag has finally done the job by moving the MFT and its Reserved space aprrox. 3 GB into each partition
Speed Disk was also able to consolidate the MFT, but the difference was that it put it all at the start of the partition.

Honestly, I haven't found any difference between having the MFT at the start of the partition and 3 GB into the partition.
Obviously, the computer runs much faster and smoother than it used to because I originally had a very fragmented MFT that was distributed all over the partition.

Anyhow, now its one nice clean block 3 GB into the partitions, everything is fast and smooth, I'm happy and I'm not planning to mess with it any further :D :D
 
"Speed Disk was also able to consolidate the MFT, but the difference was that it put it all at the start of the partition."

Actually, SpeedDisk was able to move all but the first 16 clusters of the $MFT to the beginning of the partition. Microsoft's defrag APIs allow all but the first 16 clusters (which also happens to be the first 16 records of the $MFT) of the $MFT to be moved online. So, what you ended up having is the $MFT in at least 2 pieces...

- Greg/Raxco Software
 
Originally posted by GHayes


Let's see... Windows XP very specifically places the $MFT further into the partition to gain a 5 to 10% performance improvment with the NTFS file system and you want SpeedDisk to place it back at the beginning of the partition so that you lose that 5-10% performance improvement?

- Greg/Raxco Software


what a great thread, I'm surprised I didn't see it before...excellant read.

sorry to change the subject, don't consider this a highjack, but I need to use this qoute.

here, as I've said in the past, the myth that files are more efficient at the beginning os the disc are uninformed, the most accesed files are most efficient in the middle of your information.

2z, in our previous discussion, I believe in your benchmarks, you placed the files in the middle of the disc, rather then the middle of the data, and that would be why you might get better seek times with the files at the beginning of the disc.

lonman, it's good to see you
 
1. M$ placed the mft zone 1/3 into the drive to avoid fragmentation which is detrimental to performance its got nothing to do with speed; in fact its now slower
The real reason for M$ moving the mft is simple
Reduced customer support calls

2. files located on the outer tracks of the disk are accessed quicker (always have & always will do)

Advantages of Multi-Partition Drives

Advantage #1: A hard drive containing multiple partitions allows you to *lower* your drive's effective access time, providing you with a more responsive system.

If you create a partition at the outer/leading edge of your drive (*1), and install your operating system & applications there .. and use the inner/slower parts of the disk for storing files that don't require access during normal system operating (i.e. downloads, drivers, back-ups, Ghost images, etc.) .. you'll limit/restrict your drive's seeks to the fastest part of the drive.

(*1) - the first partition you create on a drive will automatically take the outer/leading/fastest edge. Here's a photo of a hard drive's intenals: -

hard_disk_drive.jpg


In other words, the drive's read/write heads won't have to travel (seek) to the far end of the drive (during normal system usage). This will provide you with a more responsive system by decreasing the drive's effective seek/access time.

A drive with a larger capacity will notice a more dramatic 'truncating' effect. For example, 8 gigs is roughly 40% of a 20-gig drive. But it's only 10% of a 80-gig drive. In other words, you can limit your drive's travel (seeks) to the fastest 10% of a 80-gig drive by creating an 8-gig partition and storing only your operating system & applications there. It's common knowledge that a drive with the same amount of data will 'feel' more responsive on a *larger* drive than a smaller one .. even tho both drives may have *identical* manufacturer's performance specs.

This is because the data on the larger drive will be limited to a smaller area. This is also one of the reasons why larger drives feel faster, even tho they have the exact same manufacturer specs as the smaller one. It's cuz the larger drive has a lower effective seek time.

If you install your operating system to a single, large partition, there's nothing to prevent both system & program files, over time, from winding up at the far end of the drive (Windows updates, program updates, driver updates, etc.).

System and program files that wind up at the far end of the drive take longer to access, and are transferred at a slower rate, which translates into a less-responsive system.
If you look at the graph of sustained transfer rates (STRs) from the HD Tach benchmark you'll see clearly that the outermost sectors of the drive transfer data the fastest.

hdtach_75gxp_w2ksp2.gif


In this case - that of a 45GB IBM 75GXP, which isn't very different from a 60GB IBM 60GXP - the transfer rate is roughly 40MB/s at the outer edge. But it's less than half that, or ~18MB/s, at the inner tracks. This is because the linear velocity of the discs are faster at the *outer* tracks. If you've ever played on a merry-go-round, you understand this concept. You know that you move much faster when standing at the outer edge, compared to the center.

Faster linear velocity means that more data passes under the read/write heads per unit time. This is another way of saying higher data transfer rate

(which is simply another way of saying 'faster').

smokin[1].gif
 
"1. M$ placed the mft zone 1/3 into the drive to avoid fragmentation which is detrimental to performance its got nothing to do with speed; in fact its now slower
The real reason for M$ moving the mft is simple
Reduced customer support calls"

mmmm. You can't convince me of that. MS didn't have to place the $MFT further into the drive simply in order to reduce fragmentation. That's what the MFT Reserved Zone is for and it is created adjacent to the $MFT - regardless where the $MFT is located.

How does placing the $MFT further into the drive result in reduced customer support calls? I don't believe that I'm seeing the connection.

- Greg/Raxco Software
 
2z, we,'e had this conversation before.

I believe you are talking about transfer time.

seek time is deminished whem the information is in the area that the heads reside the majority of the time, and this means towards the midddle of your most accesed data, and not at the beginning of the disc, where the heads are at the beginning of the day

Where you are accessing more than one file at a time... as is almost always the case, unless you have the luxury of one file per physical drive (!)... it is far more important to minimize seek time than transfer time. Putting a file at the beginning of the HD optimizes transfer time, but hurts seek time, and the cost in seek time is far greater than the gain in transfer time. In other words, it's a net loss.

I'm not of the mind that ms designed this file placement feature to reduce service calls due to fragmentation

a defrag strategy, and not a file placement strategy would have resolved that issue,
 
Posted by GHayes
How does placing the $MFT further into the drive result in reduced customer support calls? I don't believe that I'm seeing the connection.
OK

when you sell a product that has inherent faults
it will lead to more customer support calls

each version of windows has been made with inherent faults
resulting in M$ spending millions on customer support

M$ would like to reverse this trend of millions of unhappy customers & to do this they change/upgrade there software
to be as stable as possible

The last version of NTFS: - NT4 (thought to be so good it was shipped out minus a defragmenter)the MFT & Zone were placed at the front of the drive and were subject to fragmentation when this occurred performance was badly affected & there was no way to defragment it without formatting - resulting in more customer support calls
MFT FRAGMENTATION

The MFT (Master File Table) keeps track of the files and empty space on an NTFS partition. Whenever a file is read, wrote, created or modified there location is read from the MFT. Most applications read/write to many files resulting in heavy I/O for the MFT. A heavily fragmented MFT can cause performance to be degraded extremely.

The only way to check how fragmented your MFT is, is by using a tool like Diskeeper. The bad news is that unless you own Diskeeper you won't be able to defrag it either well unless you reformat the drive!

Note: This procedure is unnecessary on partitions using the FAT file system.
So in response to this problem M$ created NT5 with the MFT now created next to a free zone SOOOOOOO BIG fragmentation of the MFT is no longer an issue.

Resulting in fewer customer support calls

banghead[1].gif
 
well, creating the mft zone isn't an issue, 2z, unless you are short on drive space...for instance, today, 512 ram is hardly enough, and this is because programmers take advantage of available technology and resources.they should).

that's the point...when resources exceed need, you create a need...you try your best to make use of resources that are available, with better/more efficient/more stable/ whatever product

for those people that are short on hd, the solution is to boviously use a file system that doesn't use the master file table and zone.

this is the same thing as people that have trouble affording the price of gas.

these people need a smaller, less luxurios, slower vehicle.

those that the price of gas is not the issue, will use the more powerfull engine, and reap all the benefits of the luxery that the more powerfull engine can occomodate
 

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