fat16-fat32 conversion:
8-ft-7
Also MS Defrag will actually fragment your HD to move around the application
files you use most often to the easiest cylinder of your hard drive for the
heads to reach. It increases application load time considerably, but the
catch is that Norton will catch it doing this and report excessive disk
fragmentation. I guess you can't win all the wars, can you? :-)
8'7"
Micro wrote in message <34ff782c...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 02:49:49 GMT, kra...@my.email.address (krakan)
>wrote:
>
>>I was forced to convert a 2 gb partition (internet stuff) as it had
>>filled up with many small files.
>>I use teleport a lot and thata means many small files due to many gifs
>>and other samll files being present.
>>So gaining an extra 800mb was worth it.
>>
>>Whole thing took about 5 minutes on an UDMA second 2 gb partition
>>(Quantum 6.4 st fireball) .
>>Only problem is that at the end the ms defrag takes such a long
>>time!!!
>>Anyway, it shows that a conversion doesnt have to take hours.
>>I suspect that 96mb ram and p2-266 do help though!
>>1. why does ms defrag take so much longer then Nortons...
>> Any reason why one should prefer the MS version??
>> I use Nortons v3, latest version with updates (mainly for
>> diskdoctor and defrag)
>>
>>
>>2, Any idea what would happen if I tried this on my boot disk which
>>MAY have a fattable with a problem except that neither scandisk or
>>Norton can find it....
>>Considering that under windows I cannot install an updated 98 or under
>>dos boot to NT due to some problem I hesitate to gamble on my boot
>>partition!
> All 4 of my IDE drives are Fat32 (2- ATA4, 2-ATA3) with no
>problems or loss of noticeable speed ( yes, it can be measured, but so
>can the spped of sound and I can't see that either <G> Don't make too
>much of benchmarks , see how it works in the REAL world first.)
> As to MS defrag and NU3 speeddisk, a lot has to do with which
>you run first. While both defrag the disk they place files in a
>different order on the disk physically. (Speeddisk has more adjustable
>options in this area) Running one after the other guarantees a long
>wait. Also bear in mind that Fat32 has generally four times (4K vs
>16K) as many clusters as a Fat16 disk and will take longer to defrag
>for that reason alone. (I use 2K clusters on mine, 8 times the Fat16
>norm, but they still defrag fast if defragging is done on a regular
>basis. And yes cluster size is much more adjustable from the FDISK
>command line than with Partition Magic and isn't it interesting that
>Partion Magic "appeared" after the Detroit beta, when MS decided not
>to release their in-place Fat32 convertor and funny how BOTH have the
>exact same limitations. Hmmm.)
> I see no difference, only a slight speed increase with
>Speeddisk over MS defrag, PROVIDED one or the other is used on a
>consistent basis BEFORE comparing speeds. (Try it for yourself using 5
>defrag as a baseline on each) Back to back testing (which I normally
>recommend for most things) will in this case give totally unreliable
>results in this case. I believe this to be because BOTH the MS and NU
>defraggers take several "defrags" before they truly have the files on
>the HD "in order" to their basic satisfaction. Until then, they
>continue to move files around causing an increase in run time. This is
>one reason I beleive both come with a way of setting up background
>operation and setting up "scheduled " runs.
>
>
> Micro
8-ft-7
Doh!!! In that last part I meant decreased load time. Oh well.
I'm not sure about Norton 3.0 I'll find out though. I too was surprised at
the riduculous estimation the FAT32 converter gave. I think I'll send in a
bug on that.
8'7"
krakan wrote in message <34edcd03...@news.supernews.com>...
>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 06:07:34 -0500, "8-ft-7" <eight...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Also MS Defrag will actually fragment your HD to move around the
application
>>files you use most often to the easiest cylinder of your hard drive for
the
>>heads to reach. It increases application load time considerably, but the
>>catch is that Norton will catch it doing this and report excessive disk
>>fragmentation. I guess you can't win all the wars, can you? :-)
>
>>
>>
>>
>>8'7"
>>
>I thought Norton v3 does the same...
>Biggest surprise for me was that windows warns me for hours
>conversions and it takes a few minutes...
>Agreed though with the rest, and obviously one should stick with one
>program:: makes it difficult to see how the other program behaves