Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why does defragmenting the system partition mess things up?
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark F
Feb 19, 2012, 8:56:55 PM2/19/12
to
Why do things get messed up when I defragment the system partition?
I use the built-in Windows Deframentation program, assuming that if
I will be told that I have to schedule a defragment for reboot
time if there is any reason not to defragment.
I don't defragment the system disk often, just when I make a clone to
another disk and make it the system disk, and not even every time
I change my system disk.
I have found that often, maybe even every time since I moved to
Windows XP, things get messed up.
Some symptoms are:
. programs (Forte Agent, for example) need to be "activated"
again.
. cookies (in Internet Explorer 7, at least) get lost
. Some programs just stop working (the Send Fax function
for Hewlett-Packard LaserJet 3030.)
What usually happens is:
. Use a stand-alone clone program to move to another disk
. I boot from the new system disk and try out about 20
programs, then run for a few days.
. I defragment the system partition.
. (Since I've been too dumb to keep a list until now,
after a few days) Some program refuses to run correctly
and I remember the problem that is seen after defragmenting.
. I clone the original disk again and don't defragment
the new one.
Things then seem to work.
I haven't seen the problem on my two systems that don't
have many programs running on them: I regularly defragment
after I've made a clone of the system disk as a backup
or to replace the system disk, so the problem might be
limited to the two machines that I have many programs on.
Has anyone:
. had problems after defragmenting the system partition?
. had problems after cloning the system to another type
of drive and then defragmenting the new system disk?
Thanks.
(Although in the past I have had some software that does care about
the serial number of model number of the system disk, I seem to have
stopped using those pieces of software of got site licensed versions
that don't care what machines they are running on. Even Windows XP
on my Dell machines doesn't care about the disk since it is an
OEM version tied to the BIOS.)
I use the built-in Windows Deframentation program, assuming that if
I will be told that I have to schedule a defragment for reboot
time if there is any reason not to defragment.
I don't defragment the system disk often, just when I make a clone to
another disk and make it the system disk, and not even every time
I change my system disk.
I have found that often, maybe even every time since I moved to
Windows XP, things get messed up.
Some symptoms are:
. programs (Forte Agent, for example) need to be "activated"
again.
. cookies (in Internet Explorer 7, at least) get lost
. Some programs just stop working (the Send Fax function
for Hewlett-Packard LaserJet 3030.)
What usually happens is:
. Use a stand-alone clone program to move to another disk
. I boot from the new system disk and try out about 20
programs, then run for a few days.
. I defragment the system partition.
. (Since I've been too dumb to keep a list until now,
after a few days) Some program refuses to run correctly
and I remember the problem that is seen after defragmenting.
. I clone the original disk again and don't defragment
the new one.
Things then seem to work.
I haven't seen the problem on my two systems that don't
have many programs running on them: I regularly defragment
after I've made a clone of the system disk as a backup
or to replace the system disk, so the problem might be
limited to the two machines that I have many programs on.
Has anyone:
. had problems after defragmenting the system partition?
. had problems after cloning the system to another type
of drive and then defragmenting the new system disk?
Thanks.
(Although in the past I have had some software that does care about
the serial number of model number of the system disk, I seem to have
stopped using those pieces of software of got site licensed versions
that don't care what machines they are running on. Even Windows XP
on my Dell machines doesn't care about the disk since it is an
OEM version tied to the BIOS.)
Auric__
Feb 19, 2012, 10:31:35 PM2/19/12
to
Mark F wrote:
> Why do things get messed up when I defragment the system partition?
>
> I use the built-in Windows Deframentation program, assuming that if
> I will be told that I have to schedule a defragment for reboot
> time if there is any reason not to defragment.
>
> I don't defragment the system disk often, just when I make a clone to
> another disk and make it the system disk, and not even every time
> I change my system disk.
>
> I have found that often, maybe even every time since I moved to
> Windows XP, things get messed up.
>
> Some symptoms are:
[snip]
> Why do things get messed up when I defragment the system partition?
>
> I use the built-in Windows Deframentation program, assuming that if
> I will be told that I have to schedule a defragment for reboot
> time if there is any reason not to defragment.
>
> I don't defragment the system disk often, just when I make a clone to
> another disk and make it the system disk, and not even every time
> I change my system disk.
>
> I have found that often, maybe even every time since I moved to
> Windows XP, things get messed up.
>
> Some symptoms are:
Try copying *everything* from the system partition to another partition, file
by file. You'll need to do this from outside Windows -- a separate Windows
install, a Linux boot CD, whatever. After everything is copied, format the
drive, then copy everything back. (I'd copy the pagefile *last* -- but that's
just me.)
I don't know what the actual problem is, but the above will effectively
defrag the drive. (If I had to guess, I'd say there might be problems with
the files in the image. Or perhaps bad sectors on the disk.)
--
There's not enough brain bleach in the world.
Char Jackson
Feb 19, 2012, 11:35:28 PM2/19/12
to
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:31:35 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>Try copying *everything* from the system partition to another partition, file
>by file. You'll need to do this from outside Windows -- a separate Windows
>install, a Linux boot CD, whatever. After everything is copied, format the
>drive, then copy everything back. (I'd copy the pagefile *last* -- but that's
>just me.)
I wouldn't copy the pagefile at all. Windows will recreate it the next
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>Try copying *everything* from the system partition to another partition, file
>by file. You'll need to do this from outside Windows -- a separate Windows
>install, a Linux boot CD, whatever. After everything is copied, format the
>drive, then copy everything back. (I'd copy the pagefile *last* -- but that's
>just me.)
time you boot up.
Mark F
Feb 19, 2012, 11:58:43 PM2/19/12
to
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:31:35 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:
at least neither
SMART
nor
Computer Management > System Tools > Event Viewer
show any problems from the time when the defrag was done.
I might have some bad data on the disk, but I can't think of how
defraging the disk would break anything that wasn't already broken.
Disk Properties > Tools > Error-checking > "Check Now..."
found no errors both before and after the defrag, but of course there
could be an error that wasn't detected. I also used HD Tune Pro
on the both the source and destination disks and, for the particular
drives I had the problem with recently no errors were found by
the scan and SMART didn't report any problems.
Not that it isn't possible to just Copy everything - many things
don't actually get copied correctly. XXCLONE (www.xxclone.com) from
Pixelab might work now, but it had known problems the last time I
tried it. However that was in 2005, so I'll look at the current
status of things. The XXCLONE site says you can clone current the
system disk and make the clone bootable, but it seems unlikely
that everything would get copied correctly. As for making the
source and destination drives not the system disk, Norton Antivirus
and a couple of other programs that I use
seem to do something with Access Control Lists so that a few files
can't be read on a clone of the system disk made by a stand-alone
utility (so I can't check that the clone matches the original.)
(My normal procedure for backing up the system is to make 2 clones
and compare them. I always find that I can't check the
mentioned files and sometimes the $LogFile and a few dates
don't match on between the two clones. I can explain the
differences between the original and the clone, but for the
files making up the Registry all I know is that the clone copy
and the original copy are different, so much stuff might be
changing that shouldn't be. Again, even if there are differences
that shouldn't be, I don't know why things work with the clone
before it is defragmented.
Also, I will investigate if changing the size of the partition
during the cloning operation defragments things. (And if it does
defragment things I see anything gets broken.)
PeterC
Feb 20, 2012, 3:54:28 AM2/20/12
to
windows. I do it about once a month and then use the copy.
I do find that it helps to delete the Prefetch data on the copy as that
seems to delay things. I then defragment the copy; so far it's been OK every
time.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway
kelly
Feb 20, 2012, 4:35:11 AM2/20/12
to
defrag for a while now and have no problems. It's free here.
http://majorgeeks.com/IObit_SmartDefrag_d5318.html
IObit SmartDefrag 2.3.0.1126 (Free)
1st "download" position, ignore advert and click on "click here if it
does not".
File size:3,248 KB.
Name:sd2-setup-slim.exe
"clean" according to AVG & Malwarebytes. This defrag is way faster
than Windows built-in one.
Good luck.
Greegor
Feb 20, 2012, 5:58:56 AM2/20/12
to
The current version of XXCLONE works well for
my WinXP Pro and MS Cleanup/Scandisk/Defrag
hasn't broken any programs for me.
Mark F: What exact version of CLONE program did you use?
What exact version of Windows XP did you use?
You mentioned MS DEFRAG but you didn't mention
the MS CLEANUP ( Right clck on drive, properties, disk cleanup )
nor did you mention MS SCANDISK
( Right clck on drive, properties, TOOLS, Error Checking,
Check Now button,
click BOTH option boxes
[X] automatically fix file system errors
[X] scan for and attempt recovery of bad sectors
START button )
> Some symptoms are:
> . programs (Forte Agent, for example) need to be "activated"
> again.
I don't think that program uses copy protection but
this failure sounds analagous to copy protection.
You said "activation" not INSTALL.
Does agent bypass or exceed rules for normal
program installation and use hidden sectors
to mark it as "activated"?
If they used undeclared sectors like that you can
expect scandisk/defrag to cause such problems.
It truly sounds like the program is using space
on the hard disk that is not declared in the NTFS
counterpart of the FAT table.
> . cookies (in Internet Explorer 7, at least) get lost
Those should be using ligit declared sectors.
Why aren't you using IE8?
> . Some programs just stop working (the Send Fax function
> for Hewlett-Packard LaserJet 3030.)
Unknown.
my WinXP Pro and MS Cleanup/Scandisk/Defrag
hasn't broken any programs for me.
Mark F: What exact version of CLONE program did you use?
What exact version of Windows XP did you use?
You mentioned MS DEFRAG but you didn't mention
the MS CLEANUP ( Right clck on drive, properties, disk cleanup )
nor did you mention MS SCANDISK
( Right clck on drive, properties, TOOLS, Error Checking,
Check Now button,
click BOTH option boxes
[X] automatically fix file system errors
[X] scan for and attempt recovery of bad sectors
START button )
> Some symptoms are:
> . programs (Forte Agent, for example) need to be "activated"
> again.
this failure sounds analagous to copy protection.
You said "activation" not INSTALL.
Does agent bypass or exceed rules for normal
program installation and use hidden sectors
to mark it as "activated"?
If they used undeclared sectors like that you can
expect scandisk/defrag to cause such problems.
It truly sounds like the program is using space
on the hard disk that is not declared in the NTFS
counterpart of the FAT table.
> . cookies (in Internet Explorer 7, at least) get lost
Why aren't you using IE8?
> . Some programs just stop working (the Send Fax function
> for Hewlett-Packard LaserJet 3030.)
Greegor
Feb 21, 2012, 8:56:34 AM2/21/12
to
Apparently the OP Mark F bypassed the MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk.
I seriously question his logic for refusing to use those.
Protecting nebulous temporary files does not make sense to me.
Traditionally MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk should
immediately precede a MS DEFRAG.
Apparently he could try the very latest XXCLONE but hasn't.
I only feel stronger that programs are breaking
because of going "rogue" and using sectors that
are not formally registered with NTFS.
Without using MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk (deep mode),
you have no assurances that the file structure is intact
before MS Defrag gets to it.
The level of checking that SMART does is NOT
a replacement for MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk (deep).
One comment also implies that he is cloning
from one port to another and then the copy
is failing on a DIFFERENT ordinal port.
The newest XXCOPY free has a "goodies" section
to make any drive "bootable" even if it's on
a different ordinal port.
I have used this function to make a novel (to me)
type of multi-boot system where the ordinal drives
are swapped around, yet they work perfectly.
If you want a drive clone program to copy rogue
sectors that are not registered in the NTFS file
structure, like those sometimes used for
COPY PROTECTION, then you need to find
one that has an option to copy
EVERY last sector, sector by sector.
Many clone programs have sector by sector
as an OPTION because that has a SEVERE
impact on performance and useability.
Primitive drive clone programs that do this
are incredibly SLOW to clone a drive.
I tried cloning a drive through a gadget that
converts from IDE to SATA and that slowed
down drive cloning to an amazing extent too.
I would suspect that a clone program in
sector by sector mode would be problematic
where the two drive sizes do not match.
----------------------
New in line comments from me in [ brackets ]
Somebody purporting to be Mark F answered me in e-mail:
G > The current version of XXCLONE works well for
I used XXCLONE before the current century and then in about 2005,
so the versions are ancient. When I ran things XXCLONE was known
not to work properly, especially with some of the tied-to-a-computer
software that I was using.
I have a lifetime site license (which no longer seems to be offered),
so I can download the latest version if I decide to try XXCLONE.)
G > my WinXP Pro and MS Cleanup/Scandisk/Defrag
G > hasn't broken any programs for me.
G >
G > Mark F: What exact version of CLONE program did you use?
I've used a bunch and more than 2 have failed at past times.
This latest time I used Acronis True Image Home 2012 with Plus
Pack, build 6154 of 2011 December 27.
("Plus Pack is supposed to permit changing the disk type, but
it isn't supposed to be needed for going from one SATA drive to
another. I removed the old drive and connect the new drive
when I was done with the disk clone, so the port number for the
new disk stayed the same. You are supposed to be able to switch the
port motherboard after the clone, but perhaps that is a problem.)
I was going to use Acronis Backup & Recovery Advanced Workstation,
but that program isn't smart enough to move things to a different
size disk without changing the size of the partitions and moving
things around in the partitions. I thought was asking for
trouble, so I reverted to the home product.)
G > What exact version of Windows XP did you use?
I've always used the latest patched version of Windows XP.
Currently Service Pack 3 with patches that were current on
February 9.
[ Home, Professional, etc? ]
G > You mentioned MS DEFRAG but you didn't mention
G > the MS CLEANUP ( Right clck on drive, properties, disk cleanup )
G > nor did you mention MS SCANDISK
G > ( Right clck on drive, properties, TOOLS, Error Checking,
G > Check Now button,
G >
G > click BOTH option boxes
G > [X] automatically fix file system errors
G > [X] scan for and attempt recovery of bad sectors
I had no need to clean stuff, so I didn't, since I didn't
want to accidentally delete a file that I needed or a
"temporary" file that really wasn't.
[ There is a checklist to manage in case you
actually don't want your cookies or data for
automatically filling in blanks cleared., etc. ]
[ Personally I like to clear even those and start
over everyy once in awhile so it doesn't BLOAT. ]
I think the drives regularly scan for bad blocks. I
scanned the output drive for bad blocks before starting
the clone with no problems found. Since things started
acting flaky I scanned again and no problems were found,
not problems recorded by Windows, and none in the SMART
information from the drive.
[ You introduced a drive image that did NOT conform
to NTFS file structure (counterpart of FAT) which
easily explains the failure you imply indirectly. ]
G > START button )
I seriously question his logic for refusing to use those.
Protecting nebulous temporary files does not make sense to me.
Traditionally MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk should
immediately precede a MS DEFRAG.
Apparently he could try the very latest XXCLONE but hasn't.
I only feel stronger that programs are breaking
because of going "rogue" and using sectors that
are not formally registered with NTFS.
Without using MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk (deep mode),
you have no assurances that the file structure is intact
before MS Defrag gets to it.
The level of checking that SMART does is NOT
a replacement for MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk (deep).
One comment also implies that he is cloning
from one port to another and then the copy
is failing on a DIFFERENT ordinal port.
The newest XXCOPY free has a "goodies" section
to make any drive "bootable" even if it's on
a different ordinal port.
I have used this function to make a novel (to me)
type of multi-boot system where the ordinal drives
are swapped around, yet they work perfectly.
If you want a drive clone program to copy rogue
sectors that are not registered in the NTFS file
structure, like those sometimes used for
COPY PROTECTION, then you need to find
one that has an option to copy
EVERY last sector, sector by sector.
Many clone programs have sector by sector
as an OPTION because that has a SEVERE
impact on performance and useability.
Primitive drive clone programs that do this
are incredibly SLOW to clone a drive.
I tried cloning a drive through a gadget that
converts from IDE to SATA and that slowed
down drive cloning to an amazing extent too.
I would suspect that a clone program in
sector by sector mode would be problematic
where the two drive sizes do not match.
----------------------
New in line comments from me in [ brackets ]
Somebody purporting to be Mark F answered me in e-mail:
G > The current version of XXCLONE works well for
I used XXCLONE before the current century and then in about 2005,
so the versions are ancient. When I ran things XXCLONE was known
not to work properly, especially with some of the tied-to-a-computer
software that I was using.
I have a lifetime site license (which no longer seems to be offered),
so I can download the latest version if I decide to try XXCLONE.)
G > my WinXP Pro and MS Cleanup/Scandisk/Defrag
G > hasn't broken any programs for me.
G >
G > Mark F: What exact version of CLONE program did you use?
I've used a bunch and more than 2 have failed at past times.
This latest time I used Acronis True Image Home 2012 with Plus
Pack, build 6154 of 2011 December 27.
("Plus Pack is supposed to permit changing the disk type, but
it isn't supposed to be needed for going from one SATA drive to
another. I removed the old drive and connect the new drive
when I was done with the disk clone, so the port number for the
new disk stayed the same. You are supposed to be able to switch the
port motherboard after the clone, but perhaps that is a problem.)
I was going to use Acronis Backup & Recovery Advanced Workstation,
but that program isn't smart enough to move things to a different
size disk without changing the size of the partitions and moving
things around in the partitions. I thought was asking for
trouble, so I reverted to the home product.)
G > What exact version of Windows XP did you use?
I've always used the latest patched version of Windows XP.
Currently Service Pack 3 with patches that were current on
February 9.
[ Home, Professional, etc? ]
G > You mentioned MS DEFRAG but you didn't mention
G > the MS CLEANUP ( Right clck on drive, properties, disk cleanup )
G > nor did you mention MS SCANDISK
G > ( Right clck on drive, properties, TOOLS, Error Checking,
G > Check Now button,
G >
G > click BOTH option boxes
G > [X] automatically fix file system errors
G > [X] scan for and attempt recovery of bad sectors
I had no need to clean stuff, so I didn't, since I didn't
want to accidentally delete a file that I needed or a
"temporary" file that really wasn't.
[ There is a checklist to manage in case you
actually don't want your cookies or data for
automatically filling in blanks cleared., etc. ]
[ Personally I like to clear even those and start
over everyy once in awhile so it doesn't BLOAT. ]
I think the drives regularly scan for bad blocks. I
scanned the output drive for bad blocks before starting
the clone with no problems found. Since things started
acting flaky I scanned again and no problems were found,
not problems recorded by Windows, and none in the SMART
information from the drive.
[ You introduced a drive image that did NOT conform
to NTFS file structure (counterpart of FAT) which
easily explains the failure you imply indirectly. ]
G > START button )
Char Jackson
Feb 21, 2012, 6:57:09 PM2/21/12
to
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:56:34 -0800 (PST), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Traditionally MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk should
>immediately precede a MS DEFRAG.
Scandisk is history, right? Do you mean chkdsk?
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Traditionally MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk should
>immediately precede a MS DEFRAG.
Tim Meddick
Feb 22, 2012, 11:32:38 AM2/22/12
to
I'm sure he does...
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Char Jackson" <no...@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:dpb8k7pd0eoorn3cp...@4ax.com...
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Char Jackson" <no...@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:dpb8k7pd0eoorn3cp...@4ax.com...
Mark F
Feb 23, 2012, 9:44:19 PM2/23/12
to
> Apparently the OP Mark F bypassed the MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk.
I did do a scandisk to check the metadata structure.
I used HD Tune Pro 5.00 to read all of the none-spare blocks
on the drive.
> I seriously question his logic for refusing to use those.
> Protecting nebulous temporary files does not make sense to me.
Deleting temporary files should not have any effect that I
> Protecting nebulous temporary files does not make sense to me.
can see if the files are not being used. If they are being used
by some buggy program then cleaning them up could break something.
>
> Traditionally MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk should
> immediately precede a MS DEFRAG.
>
> Apparently he could try the very latest XXCLONE but hasn't.
XXCLONE is on my list of things to try now, but I will try
> Traditionally MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk should
> immediately precede a MS DEFRAG.
>
> Apparently he could try the very latest XXCLONE but hasn't.
a boot time defrag first with a new clone on a new disk.
In the mean time I am burning in the new disks that I got for
testing so that there wouldn't be any issue with blocks going bad.
The disk where the software went wacky was a few months
old and only had been used for a 3 day burnin, being cloned
to. I then compared the new disk to the old disk, defraged
it, and started encountering strange things in seldom used
programs the first time I tried to run them.
There may have been other strange things going on, but the first
two things I noticed were a program saying it had to be activated
(using a different word.) I thought this happened because made
a mistake when I moved the data and INI file off of the system
disk. Then there was another licensing issue, which I thought
might have been due to something checking for the disk model or
serial number. These I two problems I was able to fix by using
the original licensing information.
Then I had the problem of trying to send a fax on my HP LaserJet
3030: something decided that the scan software wasn't installed
and I couldn't get around the issue. At that point it dawned on
me that I didn't make a mistake in moving the software and
that the other software didn't have problems when changing drives
in the past, and I had never seen problems with the HP software
when moving to new system disks, so the logical explanation
is that the defrag messed things up.
>
> I only feel stronger that programs are breaking
> because of going "rogue" and using sectors that
> are not formally registered with NTFS.
>
> Without using MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk (deep mode),
> you have no assurances that the file structure is intact
> before MS Defrag gets to it.
Again, I don't think the surface test finds metadata errors
> I only feel stronger that programs are breaking
> because of going "rogue" and using sectors that
> are not formally registered with NTFS.
>
> Without using MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk (deep mode),
> you have no assurances that the file structure is intact
> before MS Defrag gets to it.
and I did the scandisk, just not the surface test.
>
> The level of checking that SMART does is NOT
> a replacement for MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk (deep).
MS Cleanup doesn't do any checking that I know of.
> The level of checking that SMART does is NOT
> a replacement for MS Cleanup and MS Scandisk (deep).
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by MS Scandisk (deep)
I do:
1. right-click on partition > Properties
2. select tab Tools
3. Under Error-checking, click on button "Check Now..."
4. Click button "Start"
I don't check the "Automatically fix file system errors"
box because that messes things up for recovery programs.
I might check it on a second run if the first run found
just a few errors.
I didn't check "Scan for an attempt recovery of bad sectors"
since it wouldn't find anything that the drive won't and fix
by itself if the entire surface is read and I run other
programs to do this.
No errors were found both before I did the clone
or before I did the Defragmentation or after I did
the Defragmentation.
I didn't try the boot-time version of check disk.
I'll do that when I make a new clone.
>
> One comment also implies that he is cloning
> from one port to another and then the copy
> is failing on a DIFFERENT ordinal port.
I run the stand-alone cloning program (I used Acronis
True Image Home 2012 with Plus Pack) with the
system disk on its usual port.
I then:
. shutdown the system
. disconnect the original disk,
. put the clone in its place.
. boot
. change the volume label on the clone, now the system disk
. do Properties > Tools > Error Checking
. Defrag the new system disk
. do Error Checking again
. connect the system disk to an adapter card that
supports doing so on a running system
. Tell the adapter card to scan for new stuff
. Tell Windows Device manager to scan for new stuff
. Compare to make sure that everything matches as
much as it should. (Thus, the defragemented clone
matches the original except for things that are known
to have changed.
. Turn things off and put the original disk in a safe place.
Note: Some Windows versions (I forget which ones) complain
if two drives have the same drive identifier. I got no complaints
here. I don't know if that is because the cloning program
changed the drive identifier or because Windows XP doesn't complain
even though it really needs to. Perhaps my attempt to confirm that
the clone operation worked is what broke things.
I is almost possible to compare both drives using another
system disk. Sometimes when doing a backup I make two
clones, then compare them on another system. Very few files
as permitted to be different: some $LogFile issues and some
ACL protected files used by Norton AntiVirus, and a few similar
issues. I then compare one of the clones with the original
running system disk (A bunch of acceptable differences)
This time I just compared the new system disk (clone) with
the original system disk; I didn't bother comparing the
second clone from the original with anything.
Note that it is not possible to defrag a system partition
if it isn't the running system partition.
Note also: I didn't try to defragment at boot time. Next time
I will try defraging at boot time.
>
> The newest XXCOPY free has a "goodies" section
> to make any drive "bootable" even if it's on
> a different ordinal port.
was on the original port.
>
> I have used this function to make a novel (to me)
> type of multi-boot system where the ordinal drives
> are swapped around, yet they work perfectly.
>
> If you want a drive clone program to copy rogue
> sectors that are not registered in the NTFS file
> structure, like those sometimes used for
> COPY PROTECTION, then you need to find
> one that has an option to copy
> EVERY last sector, sector by sector.
I hope I don't have any such program.
> I have used this function to make a novel (to me)
> type of multi-boot system where the ordinal drives
> are swapped around, yet they work perfectly.
>
> If you want a drive clone program to copy rogue
> sectors that are not registered in the NTFS file
> structure, like those sometimes used for
> COPY PROTECTION, then you need to find
> one that has an option to copy
> EVERY last sector, sector by sector.
I thought there was registration stuff that played around
in the MBR or space after the MBR not in partitions or required
files in fixed locations and maybe even MFT entries in a
particular location with specific settings in it, but I didn't
think there were any such thing that would use space allocated
to other files.
Is there a list of such things? (None of the 3 programs
that I had problems with do such things; in fact the HP
scan stuff doesn't do such licensing. I don't
think that I have any programs that use unmovable files
or MBR or other exo-partition stuff.)
>
> Many clone programs have sector by sector
> as an OPTION because that has a SEVERE
> impact on performance and useability.
in the partition, but unallocated clusters didn't
get copied. I did get the alignment changed to
1MB, so the location on the disk would be different.
If another direct move fails after defrag I
will try just moving to another disk of the same
type and see if that works.
>
> Primitive drive clone programs that do this
> are incredibly SLOW to clone a drive.
Are they slower than if you allocated all of the space
> Primitive drive clone programs that do this
> are incredibly SLOW to clone a drive.
on the original and did the usual clone? I've used
some programs that will copy all sectors and they
don't slow things down, just have more to copy.
I saw someone run a program to copy an entire drive
block by block and it ran slowly. However it was supposed
to be able to do better error recovery by doing things
like reverting to sector by sector, skipping bad sectors
and making another pass, switching to sector by sector instead
of a bunch at a time, going backwards, and a few other things.
>
> I tried cloning a drive through a gadget that
> converts from IDE to SATA and that slowed
I have connected an SATA drive to an IDE port
on the motherboard and didn't have a speed problem.
>
> G > You mentioned MS DEFRAG but you didn't mention
> G > the MS CLEANUP ( Right clck on drive, properties, disk cleanup )
> G > nor did you mention MS SCANDISK
> G > ( Right clck on drive, properties, TOOLS, Error Checking,
> G > Check Now button,
> G >
> G > click BOTH option boxes
> G > [X] automatically fix file system errors
I explain above why it is a bad idea to "automatically" fix errors.
> G > You mentioned MS DEFRAG but you didn't mention
> G > the MS CLEANUP ( Right clck on drive, properties, disk cleanup )
> G > nor did you mention MS SCANDISK
> G > ( Right clck on drive, properties, TOOLS, Error Checking,
> G > Check Now button,
> G >
> G > click BOTH option boxes
> G > [X] automatically fix file system errors
> G > [X] scan for and attempt recovery of bad sectors
I explain above that I used other ways to get more of the disk
scanned: including blocks not in partitions and blocks in the
pool of replacement blocks.
I also note that no blocks had more than on-the-fly
corrected errors from before I started making the clone until
after I found problems which don't show up in the metadata
part of the scan.
>
> I had no need to clean stuff, so I didn't, since I didn't
> want to accidentally delete a file that I needed or a
> "temporary" file that really wasn't.
>
> [ There is a checklist to manage in case you
> actually don't want your cookies or data for
> automatically filling in blanks cleared., etc. ]
I have no need for space, so I let things get dirty.
> I had no need to clean stuff, so I didn't, since I didn't
> want to accidentally delete a file that I needed or a
> "temporary" file that really wasn't.
>
> [ There is a checklist to manage in case you
> actually don't want your cookies or data for
> automatically filling in blanks cleared., etc. ]
Deleting a used file in a "temporary" area could break
things, so I don't clean things up:
When I was working for a large company and was supporting
many users I always built my "model" systems from
scratch with installations of all 100 or so programs.
I can't do that for my own computers because much
software cannot be installed again since it was
only available from the web, even if it were still
available, could not install on Windows XP (or Windows
7, depending on which computer.)
The computer with the problem here is fairly new for
me, and actually started with Windows XP Professional
and SATA drives, some of the software, in particular
the HP LaserJet 3030 software can't be installed.
(Replacing the 3030 doesn't solve the defrag issue,
but is another thing on my todo list: I'll take
suggestions for that also:
toner (not ink based), 60 pounds or less, 600W peak
or less, send fax from ADF with pages of varying
length with a chance to review scanned images and
keep a copy on the computer before actually sending
the fax. Normal print and scanning functions.
Price isn't an issue as long as it is a standard
product.)
>
> [ Personally I like to clear even those and start
> over everyy once in awhile so it doesn't BLOAT. ]
>
> I think the drives regularly scan for bad blocks. I
> scanned the output drive for bad blocks before starting
> the clone with no problems found. Since things started
> acting flaky I scanned again and no problems were found,
> not problems recorded by Windows, and none in the SMART
^^^ "not" should be "no"
> [ Personally I like to clear even those and start
> over everyy once in awhile so it doesn't BLOAT. ]
>
> I think the drives regularly scan for bad blocks. I
> scanned the output drive for bad blocks before starting
> the clone with no problems found. Since things started
> acting flaky I scanned again and no problems were found,
> not problems recorded by Windows, and none in the SMART
> information from the drive.
>
> [ You introduced a drive image that did NOT conform
> to NTFS file structure (counterpart of FAT) which
I have no reason to suspect that the NTFS metadata
>
> [ You introduced a drive image that did NOT conform
> to NTFS file structure (counterpart of FAT) which
(NTFS file structure) has any problems.
> easily explains the failure you imply indirectly. ]
I don't know what you are referring to. I only have
one partition on the drive and it is NTFS.
Rob
Feb 24, 2012, 7:50:23 AM2/24/12
to
When you say you use True Image, are you making the clone from
within Windows? If so, I recommend you make and use a bootable
TI CD instead. Boot to that, clone your drive and test the clone in
place of the original drive. You don't know what malware (intentional
or otherwise) is running within a live OS and may screw the cloning process.
FWIW, the only times I have ever seen ms defrag screw anything up
was with faulty hard drives or other faulty hardware (including
but not limited to: motherboard, bad cables, bad PSU.) Intermittent
power to drives can cause all sorts of seemingly unrelated problems.
I look after hundreds of PCs (thousands over the years) and have
learnt to distrust 3rd-party utility software, so never run things
like drive 'tune-up' apps, registry cleaners and similar 'tools',
unless there is absolutely no alternative.
Inbuilt MS tools, although somewhat limited, are usually far more robust
(partly due to being tested by millions of users.)
--
Rob
within Windows? If so, I recommend you make and use a bootable
TI CD instead. Boot to that, clone your drive and test the clone in
place of the original drive. You don't know what malware (intentional
or otherwise) is running within a live OS and may screw the cloning process.
FWIW, the only times I have ever seen ms defrag screw anything up
was with faulty hard drives or other faulty hardware (including
but not limited to: motherboard, bad cables, bad PSU.) Intermittent
power to drives can cause all sorts of seemingly unrelated problems.
I look after hundreds of PCs (thousands over the years) and have
learnt to distrust 3rd-party utility software, so never run things
like drive 'tune-up' apps, registry cleaners and similar 'tools',
unless there is absolutely no alternative.
Inbuilt MS tools, although somewhat limited, are usually far more robust
(partly due to being tested by millions of users.)
--
Rob
Greegor
Feb 24, 2012, 10:35:21 AM2/24/12
to
Yes, Check Disk rather than scandisk. Thanks.
Mark F > Deleting temporary files should not have any effect that I
Mark F > can see if the files are not being used. If they are being
used
Mark F > by some buggy program then cleaning them up could break
something.
That would NOT be a reason to blame MS Defrag, of course.
If something dies because of defrag the most logical
conclusion would be that you are asking defrag to
rebuild a drive where some ""off the books"" sectors
were being used.
Most people would be eager to find whatever program
is operating in such a bad way and kill it.
To avoid using MS Cleanup and MS Check Disk because
of some badly behaved program and then to blame
the problem onto MS Defrag is kind of strange.
The REAL culprit would be whatever programs
are using ""off the books"" sectors.
Are you positive you don't have a virus, Mark F?
Mark F > Deleting temporary files should not have any effect that I
Mark F > can see if the files are not being used. If they are being
used
Mark F > by some buggy program then cleaning them up could break
something.
That would NOT be a reason to blame MS Defrag, of course.
If something dies because of defrag the most logical
conclusion would be that you are asking defrag to
rebuild a drive where some ""off the books"" sectors
were being used.
Most people would be eager to find whatever program
is operating in such a bad way and kill it.
To avoid using MS Cleanup and MS Check Disk because
of some badly behaved program and then to blame
the problem onto MS Defrag is kind of strange.
The REAL culprit would be whatever programs
are using ""off the books"" sectors.
Are you positive you don't have a virus, Mark F?
pi...@yah00.com
Feb 24, 2012, 2:38:28 PM2/24/12
to
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:35:28 -0600, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
wrote:
I was thinking the same thing. In fact when I run my computer with
Win98 and Win2000 (dual boot), I always delete the pagefile from Win98,
before I defrag, or the .SWP file from Win98 when I defrag. You cant do
that in XP unless you boot from something external.
As far as the OP problems. I have defragged weekly for many years in
Win95, 98, 2K and XP. I have never had a problem, except the one time
my hard drive was failing. I'd suggest testing your HD for errors. On
the other hand, if you have not defragged in years, that drive may have
been so scrambled that it lost track during the defrag process. This
should not occur though. I recommend defragging weekly or at least once
a month.
wrote:
Win98 and Win2000 (dual boot), I always delete the pagefile from Win98,
before I defrag, or the .SWP file from Win98 when I defrag. You cant do
that in XP unless you boot from something external.
As far as the OP problems. I have defragged weekly for many years in
Win95, 98, 2K and XP. I have never had a problem, except the one time
my hard drive was failing. I'd suggest testing your HD for errors. On
the other hand, if you have not defragged in years, that drive may have
been so scrambled that it lost track during the defrag process. This
should not occur though. I recommend defragging weekly or at least once
a month.
Mark F
Feb 24, 2012, 3:53:25 PM2/24/12
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:50:23 +0000, Rob <no...@nowhere.noway.con>
wrote:
> When you say you use True Image, are you making the clone from
> within Windows? If so, I recommend you make and use a bootable
> TI CD instead. Boot to that, clone your drive and test the clone in
> place of the original drive.
That is how I do thing: boot from CD, clone, remove original and boot
from clone on the same port that the original drive was connected to.
or disk problems, or malware being detected.
There is, of course, the possibility that one or more programs
that I installed on purpose is doing something it shouldn't be.
I do, however, always keep my eyes and ears attuned to problems
with software licensing schemes and try not to buy or use should
software. Unfortunately, Windows uses such a scheme, so I am
stuck with it.
differences.
10 years ago, so I don't use them, even though I paid for lifetime
site licenses on a couple of cases.
For about 5 years I used a couple of them to defragment data only
disks, but then things changed so they no longer do anything
that I find more useful than what Windows does.
I'm sure that defragmenting doesn't result in a gain for me:
faster performance is more than offset by the time taken
to verify that things worked.
However, in this case I wanted to defragment things so
that error recovery would be easier if the drive died:
99.9%+ of the files wouldn't be fragmented since the partition
always has lots (40GB+, 35%+ free) The only things that are
fragmented are those created at the same time other files
are or are added to from time to time. I wish there were
more than just a couple of programs that allowed you to
set how much space to allocate and if you want the space
freed when the file is closed. When I had a PDP-11 and
a floppy drive I cared about the space, but now I could have
10000 files with 1MB extra space each and I wouldn't care.
> (partly due to being tested by millions of users.)
Part of my reasoning also.
wrote:
> When you say you use True Image, are you making the clone from
> within Windows? If so, I recommend you make and use a bootable
> TI CD instead. Boot to that, clone your drive and test the clone in
> place of the original drive.
from clone on the same port that the original drive was connected to.
> You don't know what malware (intentional
> or otherwise) is running within a live OS and may screw the cloning process.
> FWIW
> or otherwise) is running within a live OS and may screw the cloning process.
> FWIW
> the only times I have ever seen ms defrag screw anything up
> was with faulty hard drives or other faulty hardware (including
I've seen the problem happen several times before with no metadata
> was with faulty hard drives or other faulty hardware (including
or disk problems, or malware being detected.
There is, of course, the possibility that one or more programs
that I installed on purpose is doing something it shouldn't be.
I do, however, always keep my eyes and ears attuned to problems
with software licensing schemes and try not to buy or use should
software. Unfortunately, Windows uses such a scheme, so I am
stuck with it.
> but not limited to: motherboard, bad cables, bad PSU.)
Comparison of the original with the clone reveals no unexpected
differences.
> Intermittent
> power to drives can cause all sorts of seemingly unrelated problems.
>
> I look after hundreds of PCs (thousands over the years) and have
> learnt to distrust 3rd-party utility software, so never run things
> like drive 'tune-up' apps, registry cleaners and similar 'tools',
> unless there is absolutely no alternative.
> Inbuilt MS tools, although somewhat limited, are usually far more robust
Exactly. 3 or more defrag programs messed stuff up for me more than
> power to drives can cause all sorts of seemingly unrelated problems.
>
> I look after hundreds of PCs (thousands over the years) and have
> learnt to distrust 3rd-party utility software, so never run things
> like drive 'tune-up' apps, registry cleaners and similar 'tools',
> unless there is absolutely no alternative.
> Inbuilt MS tools, although somewhat limited, are usually far more robust
10 years ago, so I don't use them, even though I paid for lifetime
site licenses on a couple of cases.
For about 5 years I used a couple of them to defragment data only
disks, but then things changed so they no longer do anything
that I find more useful than what Windows does.
I'm sure that defragmenting doesn't result in a gain for me:
faster performance is more than offset by the time taken
to verify that things worked.
However, in this case I wanted to defragment things so
that error recovery would be easier if the drive died:
99.9%+ of the files wouldn't be fragmented since the partition
always has lots (40GB+, 35%+ free) The only things that are
fragmented are those created at the same time other files
are or are added to from time to time. I wish there were
more than just a couple of programs that allowed you to
set how much space to allocate and if you want the space
freed when the file is closed. When I had a PDP-11 and
a floppy drive I cared about the space, but now I could have
10000 files with 1MB extra space each and I wouldn't care.
> (partly due to being tested by millions of users.)
Char Jackson
Feb 24, 2012, 4:17:47 PM2/24/12
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:53:25 -0500, Mark F <mark...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>I'm sure that defragmenting doesn't result in a gain for me:
> faster performance is more than offset by the time taken
> to verify that things worked.
I agree, and that would be a good indicator to stop doing it. :-)
>However, in this case I wanted to defragment things so
>that error recovery would be easier if the drive died:
> 99.9%+ of the files wouldn't be fragmented since the partition
> always has lots (40GB+, 35%+ free)
I haven't found that fragmentation causes issues during most data
recovery operations, although I suppose there's an extreme case where
you're physically mucking around with a disk sector editor. So far I
haven't run into a situation like that.
So for me, defragging (NTFS volumes, anyway) only has cons, not pros.
wrote:
>I'm sure that defragmenting doesn't result in a gain for me:
> faster performance is more than offset by the time taken
> to verify that things worked.
>However, in this case I wanted to defragment things so
>that error recovery would be easier if the drive died:
> 99.9%+ of the files wouldn't be fragmented since the partition
> always has lots (40GB+, 35%+ free)
recovery operations, although I suppose there's an extreme case where
you're physically mucking around with a disk sector editor. So far I
haven't run into a situation like that.
So for me, defragging (NTFS volumes, anyway) only has cons, not pros.
Mark F
Feb 24, 2012, 4:21:25 PM2/24/12
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:35:21 -0800 (PST), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, Check Disk rather than scandisk. Thanks.
>
> Mark F > Deleting temporary files should not have any effect that I
> Mark F > can see if the files are not being used. If they are being
> used
> Mark F > by some buggy program then cleaning them up could break
> something.
>
> That would NOT be a reason to blame MS Defrag, of course.
Correct. So I do NOT cleanup so MS Defrag doesn't break things
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, Check Disk rather than scandisk. Thanks.
>
> Mark F > Deleting temporary files should not have any effect that I
> Mark F > can see if the files are not being used. If they are being
> used
> Mark F > by some buggy program then cleaning them up could break
> something.
>
> That would NOT be a reason to blame MS Defrag, of course.
because something else isn't following the rules.
Note that I know that I before I cloned the disk,
on several occasions I allocated all of the space in the partition
that NTFS thought was free and nothing broke. (Except for loosing
all System Restore points when I accidentally tried to
allocate more space than was available or when a background
thing needed disk space before any was freed up after being
zeroed.)
>
> If something dies because of defrag the most logical
> conclusion would be that you are asking defrag to
> rebuild a drive where some ""off the books"" sectors
> were being used.
>
> Most people would be eager to find whatever program
> is operating in such a bad way and kill it.
Me too. I have no indication that anything is behaving badly
> If something dies because of defrag the most logical
> conclusion would be that you are asking defrag to
> rebuild a drive where some ""off the books"" sectors
> were being used.
>
> Most people would be eager to find whatever program
> is operating in such a bad way and kill it.
other than what could be caused with problems happening
to one or more of the parts of the Registry and got messed
up by MS Defrag.
>
> To avoid using MS Cleanup and MS Check Disk because
> of some badly behaved program and then to blame
> the problem onto MS Defrag is kind of strange.
long as there always is free space, only more likely.
The part of MS Check Disk for metadata was run
both before cloning, before defraging, and after
defraging, with no problems detected.
While I didn't run the MS Check Disk scan data
stuff, I don't thing it scans unallocated space.
I did several checks on the drive that was to become
the clone before starting; these included checking
all user sectors from a program and having the drive
run its own diagnostics to check everything. A couple
of blocks were revectored in the initial pass of one of
the tests, but not in the second pass, or by the other program,
or an additional test after the clone.
I have now been running on a second clone made an another
disk, from the original disk for more than a week, with no problems,
including the 3 specific problems that I had with the first clone
that showed up only after the defrag.
>
> The REAL culprit would be whatever programs
> are using ""off the books"" sectors.
>
> Are you positive you don't have a virus, Mark F?
found a problem and, as I said right above, things still
work after making a second clone from the original and
running with it for more than a week.
I am in the process of running my usual burn-in tests
on the drives that I need to do another cloning,
and sometime next week do my usual procedure for making
a clone, verify that all 3 versions (clone 1, extra clone,
clone to slower device for offsite storage) all match
almost completely using another system, then booting from
clone 1 and making sure it matches the original except
in files that are expected to be different.
I will then run another check of the metadata
on the clone, set the system to do a defrag an boot time,
shutdown and disconnect the 2 data disks, and let it
defrag at boot time. Then shutdown, reconnect the data disks
and see if any problems.
Mark F
Feb 24, 2012, 4:47:11 PM2/24/12
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:38:28 -0600, pi...@yah00.com wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:35:28 -0600, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:31:35 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
> ><not.m...@email.address> wrote:
> >
> >>Try copying *everything* from the system partition to another partition, file
> >>by file. You'll need to do this from outside Windows -- a separate Windows
> >>install, a Linux boot CD, whatever. After everything is copied, format the
> >>drive, then copy everything back. (I'd copy the pagefile *last* -- but that's
> >>just me.)
> >
> >I wouldn't copy the pagefile at all. Windows will recreate it the next
> >time you boot up.
I used try to get the size of the pagefile decreased before backing
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:35:28 -0600, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:31:35 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
> ><not.m...@email.address> wrote:
> >
> >>Try copying *everything* from the system partition to another partition, file
> >>by file. You'll need to do this from outside Windows -- a separate Windows
> >>install, a Linux boot CD, whatever. After everything is copied, format the
> >>drive, then copy everything back. (I'd copy the pagefile *last* -- but that's
> >>just me.)
> >
> >I wouldn't copy the pagefile at all. Windows will recreate it the next
> >time you boot up.
up, but Windows XP only allows an individual pagefile or the swap file
to be about 8 GB in total, which is about 20 minutes extra copy time
in all the various clone operations, so I just leave them
around, since the are only an a few pieces.
>
> I was thinking the same thing. In fact when I run my computer with
> Win98 and Win2000 (dual boot), I always delete the pagefile from Win98,
> before I defrag, or the .SWP file from Win98 when I defrag. You cant do
> that in XP unless you boot from something external.
>
> As far as the OP problems. I have defragged weekly for many years in
> Win95, 98, 2K and XP. I have never had a problem, except the one time
> my hard drive was failing. I'd suggest testing your HD for errors. On
> the other hand, if you have not defragged in years, that drive may have
> been so scrambled that it lost track during the defrag process. This
> should not occur though. I recommend defragging weekly or at least once
> a month.
I don't defrag very often. I currently have
> I was thinking the same thing. In fact when I run my computer with
> Win98 and Win2000 (dual boot), I always delete the pagefile from Win98,
> before I defrag, or the .SWP file from Win98 when I defrag. You cant do
> that in XP unless you boot from something external.
>
> As far as the OP problems. I have defragged weekly for many years in
> Win95, 98, 2K and XP. I have never had a problem, except the one time
> my hard drive was failing. I'd suggest testing your HD for errors. On
> the other hand, if you have not defragged in years, that drive may have
> been so scrambled that it lost track during the defrag process. This
> should not occur though. I recommend defragging weekly or at least once
> a month.
141892 files, 286 Total fragmented files, and 2834 total Total excess
files. Pagefile is in 1 piece. Of the 13904 folders, only 10
are fragmented, with a total of 94 excess fragments, 50 of which
are in \Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\
The disk the operation failed on would have had about the same number
of pieces. I only defragged to made error recovery easier.
I had thought that about 1000 files were fragmented, but I see that
there are only 286 and that 1200+ of the 2834 excess fragments
are in about 10 files that, but the nature of how they are created,
will soon be in 20+ pieces even if they get defragmented.
The small number of fragments shows that defraging must have
worked at some point and that having lots of free space
stops things from getting fragmented.
Given that only 286 files are affected, I'm going to look around
for a program that shows me all of the fragmented files and see if
any of them beyond those that the Defrag Analyze list shows are
ones that I might want to recover if things got so flaked out that
someone try to piece files together after something got messed up in
the MFT. (I don't for performance, just for ease of recovery
if things go bad.)
>
Char Jackson
Feb 24, 2012, 5:53:28 PM2/24/12
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:47:11 -0500, Mark F <mark...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:38:28 -0600, pi...@yah00.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:35:28 -0600, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I wouldn't copy the pagefile at all. Windows will recreate it the next
>> >time you boot up.
>I used try to get the size of the pagefile decreased before backing
>up, but Windows XP only allows an individual pagefile or the swap file
>to be about 8 GB in total, which is about 20 minutes extra copy time
>in all the various clone operations, so I just leave them
>around, since the are only an a few pieces.
Windows allows you to go with no pagefile at all, or a pagefile with a
size of your choice. Where are you seeing that you're limited to a
certain size?
>I don't defrag very often. <snip>
expecting to be doing, where it's easier without fragmentation? If
you're working with NTFS volumes, I would just stop doing the
defragging. Even if it's FAT32, I'd probably skip the defragging,
especially if you suspect it's causing problems.
wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:38:28 -0600, pi...@yah00.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:35:28 -0600, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I wouldn't copy the pagefile at all. Windows will recreate it the next
>> >time you boot up.
>I used try to get the size of the pagefile decreased before backing
>up, but Windows XP only allows an individual pagefile or the swap file
>to be about 8 GB in total, which is about 20 minutes extra copy time
>in all the various clone operations, so I just leave them
>around, since the are only an a few pieces.
size of your choice. Where are you seeing that you're limited to a
certain size?
>I don't defrag very often. <snip>
>I only defragged to made error recovery easier.
I don't really get that part. What kind of recovery are you doing, or
expecting to be doing, where it's easier without fragmentation? If
you're working with NTFS volumes, I would just stop doing the
defragging. Even if it's FAT32, I'd probably skip the defragging,
especially if you suspect it's causing problems.
Mark F
Mar 5, 2012, 1:49:34 PM3/5/12
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:53:28 -0600, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
tab Advanced > Performance button Settings >
tab Advanced > Virtual memory button Change
This gets you to a window with title "Virtual Memory"
I used to limit you to 4096 for specified values. (I forget
if it said what the limit was or gave you an error when
you tried to "Set" the value. (I assume was the limit for "System
managed size", but I didn't try it.)
I am sure that I tried on Windows XP with Service Pack 3 on
partitions with NTFS file systems. However, when I try now
it doesn't complain. I used:
Custom size:
Initial size(MB): 5000
Maximum size(MB): 5002
and hit the "Set" button.
No complaints.
However, when I look at the disk I see pagefile.sys 925696 KB
pagefile.sys properties says 904 MB (947,912,704 bytes)
So, it didn't really work.
I'm going to remove it as a pagefile now and reboot since
I'm afraid that it might try to write past the end of the file.
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:47:11 -0500, Mark F <mark...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:38:28 -0600, pi...@yah00.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:35:28 -0600, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I wouldn't copy the pagefile at all. Windows will recreate it the next
> >> >time you boot up.
> >I used try to get the size of the pagefile decreased before backing
> >up, but Windows XP only allows an individual pagefile or the swap file
> >to be about 8 GB in total, which is about 20 minutes extra copy time
> >in all the various clone operations, so I just leave them
> >around, since the are only an a few pieces.
>
> Windows allows you to go with no pagefile at all, or a pagefile with a
> size of your choice. Where are you seeing that you're limited to a
> certain size?
Right click My Computer > Properties >
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:47:11 -0500, Mark F <mark...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:38:28 -0600, pi...@yah00.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:35:28 -0600, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I wouldn't copy the pagefile at all. Windows will recreate it the next
> >> >time you boot up.
> >I used try to get the size of the pagefile decreased before backing
> >up, but Windows XP only allows an individual pagefile or the swap file
> >to be about 8 GB in total, which is about 20 minutes extra copy time
> >in all the various clone operations, so I just leave them
> >around, since the are only an a few pieces.
>
> Windows allows you to go with no pagefile at all, or a pagefile with a
> size of your choice. Where are you seeing that you're limited to a
> certain size?
tab Advanced > Performance button Settings >
tab Advanced > Virtual memory button Change
This gets you to a window with title "Virtual Memory"
I used to limit you to 4096 for specified values. (I forget
if it said what the limit was or gave you an error when
you tried to "Set" the value. (I assume was the limit for "System
managed size", but I didn't try it.)
I am sure that I tried on Windows XP with Service Pack 3 on
partitions with NTFS file systems. However, when I try now
it doesn't complain. I used:
Custom size:
Initial size(MB): 5000
Maximum size(MB): 5002
and hit the "Set" button.
No complaints.
However, when I look at the disk I see pagefile.sys 925696 KB
pagefile.sys properties says 904 MB (947,912,704 bytes)
So, it didn't really work.
I'm going to remove it as a pagefile now and reboot since
I'm afraid that it might try to write past the end of the file.
0 new messages