Reserved System Space

[ghayes]

"On your most recent post could you provide a link to the documentation you refer to regarding the 5-10%? Thanks."

Here is the link to Microsoft's site where they talk about the $MFT and why it is now placed further into the partition:
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/tech/storage/ntfs-preinstall.asp#Performance


"if the MFT is placed at the beginning of the partition, shouldn't the reserved space zone be just next to it?"

The Reserved Zone location is based on where the $MFT actually resides because it is calculated from the first cluster of the $MFT.
Under Windows XP, all but the first 16 clusters of the $MFT can be moved online. This means that the first 16 clusters of the $MFT can be located in one place on the drive and the remainder of the $MFT can be somewhere else. As the Reserved Zone is based on the START of the $MFT, you can get into a situation where the Reserved Zone free space is nowhere near the actual end of the $MFT - in which case when the $MFT grows it may not grow contiguously.


"I've got 100 gig hdd space so that meant 10gig of that was the mft"

This is incorrect. The actual size of the $MFT is very small in relation to the size of the drive. You are perhaps referring to the 10GB being the Reserved Zone? One thing that you have to remember. The file system can and will place files into the Reserved Zone as it deems necessary. Typically, it won't unless you get into a low free space condition. When you look at drive properties and look at the amount of free space, this number includes the free space that is inside of the Reserved Zone. You don't actually "lose" any free space or are prevented from using it.

- Greg/Raxco Software





- Greg/Raxco Software

 

[2z]

OK most of that went clean over my head WHOOSH !!!!
OK in laymans terms for example I install a big game onto my already 1/2 filled HDD the beginning of the game is installed before the reserved system space & the rest is installed after it -as we all know games dont run to well when the files are not contigous - to make matters worse as the drive fills that reserved space in the middle of my game is now having files written to it.

see the pic see how small that zone is now, that is what people want to see a well managed disk & that makes windows & all my programs run much faster. almost as fast as 98se

 

[Lonman]

You're absolutely right - WHOOSH, right over your head! What this people likes to see is documentation/facts.

Thx Greg, very interesting read. I have one more question for you. Does the XP installation routine perform this 'pre-installation' process when a new installation is chosen and then the choice for NTFS is made?

 

[2z]

Originally posted by Lonman
What this people likes to see is documentation/facts.

As the MFT grows, it itself can become fragmented, reducing performance further.

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/rel_Frag.htm

 

[2z]

this ones for greg

The most famous one is Norton's SpeedDisk

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/clust_Fragmentation.htm

 

[2z]

1 more for good luck

The performance implications of NTFS features mean that using NTFS may result in a slight decrease in performance compared to the use of a simpler file system such as FAT.

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/impl.htm

 

[NetRyder]

Yeah, I have part of my MFT at the start of the partition and another part probably located 3 GB into the partition even after running Speed Disk, which is NOT a bad thing.

The good thing that Speed Disk did was that it moved the existing data (my software etc.) further into the partition, leaving some free space immediately after the MFT located at the beginning of the partition. When I rebooted, the OS assigned this free space as the reserved zone for the growth of the MFT.

An advantage of this was that the disk no longer has to spin all the way thru my software to find free space to allocate the reserved zone in. It just reads the MFT and then assigns the free space immediately after as the MFT Reserved Zone.

I feel this is the reason why my harddisk has become all the more silent during the boot-up process after I used Speed Disk. This has also helped to speed up the boot process, AND will prevent further fragmentation of the partition, since the reserved zone will always be sandwiched between the actual MFT and the software files. So, anytime I install new software, it will be added in a contiguos manner at the end of the existing software files.

Hope I expressed myself clearly. Am I right in this matter now?

 

[2z]

Originally posted by XPMagic
Yeah, I have part of my MFT at the start of the partition and another part probably located 3 GB into the partition even after running Speed Disk, which is NOT a bad thing.

have a look at that second MFT zone using Diskeeper analyse
& it should be the paging file.

 

[NetRyder]

No, it is displays it in green as "SYSTEM FILES"
The paging file is located at the extreme end of my partition.

BTW, do u guys think I should use BootVIS now once again, since the MFT has been optimized and stuff? It might be advantageous, right?

EDIT: Ok, I'm giving it a try right now ... hope it's a pleasant surprise

 

[2z]

last one for greg

and the MFT cannot generally be defragmented

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/arch_MFT.htm
Unless you use norton speed disc

 

[Lonman]

Bravo... you read it. Whoosh!

 

[2z]

that is 1 good site cheers Lonman

 

[Lonman]

cheers m8... glad you took that in the spirit intended.

 

[2z]

now where's greg
the norton basher

 

[ghayes]

Here's Greg - the "Norton basher". I'm not bashing anybody folks. I just state the facts.

"http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/arch_MFT.htm"

This site really needs to be updated to reflect newer operating systems... It also doesn't go into details on the limitations of defragmenting using Microsoft's defrag APIs (such as move granularity, etc...).

When that site says that the $MFT generally can not be defragmented, it is referring to an online defragmentation using Microsoft's defrag APIs. Under NT4 and Win2k, if you want to defragment the $MFT and related metadata, you have to do a boot time defrag - unless you don't use Microsoft's defrag APIs.

Under Windows XP, Microsoft's defrag APIs (which SpeedDisk did NOT use under NT4 and Win2k but now uses under WinXP) allow all but the first 16 clusters of the $MFT to be moved online. The remainder of the metadata (which the defrag APIs won't let you move online) and the first 16 clusters of the $MFT still have to be done offline - which under Windows XP SpeedDisk doesn't allow you to do.

- Greg/Raxco Software

 

[ghayes]

"Does the XP installation routine perform this 'pre-installation' process when a new installation is chosen and then the choice for NTFS is made?"

When you install XP, if the partition is formatted as NTFS prior to installation, the $MFT is placed further into the partition. If it is a FATx partition that is converted to NTFS, then who knows where the $MFT will end up. If you are upgrading from NT4 or Win2k to WinXP and have an NTFS partition, the the $MFT remains where it was created by NT4 or Win2k.

- Greg/Raxco Software

 

[2z]

Whoosh !!!!!

 

[Lonman]

*me raises hand* I'm the norton hater... I think it's inflated bloatware that 'tries' to make itself more important then it is. I have a thing against any software that installs and requires it's own 'services' that circumvent the natural order of things. Before Win2K I actually found Norton Utilities useful to a certain degree, now they're just irritating, lol.

Greg, thanks again for the information. To further my inquiry... is the new installation and format to ntfs the 'optimal' way to create an ntfs volume?

 

[ghayes]

'is the new installation and format to ntfs the 'optimal' way to create an ntfs volume?"

A new installation/format is always the optimal way

However, if you don't necessarily have that option, all is not loss.

- Greg/Raxco Software

 

[2z]

Originally posted by Lonman
*me raises hand* I'm the norton hater... I think it's inflated bloatware that 'tries' to make itself more important then it is. I have a thing against any software that installs and requires it's own 'services' that circumvent the natural order of things. Before Win2K I actually found Norton Utilities useful to a certain degree, now they're just irritating, lol.

I've found two good uses for it
1. Speed Disk
2. WinDoctor

the rest of the inflated bloatware is either disabled or never used