cant defrag 160g sata?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Highlandish
  • Start date Start date
H

Highlandish

I am defragging my 60g and 20g ide drives, but I am not able to defrag my
160g sata drive, I get the error "ran out of memory, try closing some
applications or increase your page file". well I used enditall2 and I
increased the page file to the maximum 4096mb but that didn't help. what
gives? I don't want to partition this 160g as it is my movie editing drive
and I need the space for raw data conversions.

the only real difference I gather is between them is that the 160 has a 512k
size cluster while the others are at 4kb
 
Highlandish said:
I am defragging my 60g and 20g ide drives, but I am not able to defrag my
160g sata drive, I get the error "ran out of memory, try closing some
applications or increase your page file". well I used enditall2 and I
increased the page file to the maximum 4096mb but that didn't help. what
gives? I don't want to partition this 160g as it is my movie editing drive
and I need the space for raw data conversions.

the only real difference I gather is between them is that the 160 has a 512k
size cluster while the others are at 4kb

What is the size of the largest file (probably fragmented) on the 160g?
 
Quoth The Raven "Rick Merrill said:
What is the size of the largest file (probably fragmented) on the 160g?

2gb, multiple files of. they're ghost backups, other files are 1gb vob files
for DVD movie backups, 44gb in total, the rest are random files of various
sizes, but nothing with thousands of. mind you there is a folder that cant
be deleted or edited in any way (network source unavailable error) and dos
deleting the folder wont work
 
Highlandish said:
the only real difference I gather is between them is that the 160 has a 512k
size cluster while the others are at 4kb

Shouldn't the 160 gig have 4K clusters? My guess is that you used a
third party utility to partition it and it did so incorrectly.
 
In
Shouldn't the 160 gig have 4K clusters? My guess is that you
used a
third party utility to partition it and it did so incorrectly.


More likely he means 512-byte clusters, and he converted it from
FAT32 to NTFS. That conversion usually results in 512-byte
clusters. Read http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfscvt.htm to see how to
do this and get the normal 4K clusters.
 
512-Byte Cluster size and a 160 Gigabyte partition isn't a good
combination. You've likely got MFT problems. The default MFT
allocation table size probably isn't large enough to accommodate
512-Byte clusters. A defrag (any defrag) on this drive is going to
take a very long time to complete.
You're best option is to backup the data, and repartition & format
the drive. Personally, I wouldn't use a 160-Gig drive as a single
Primary disk partition, but segment it into multiple disks. For any
partitions that might hold Video or Music format them with a larger
cluster size than 4-K. (But that's a whole different debate issue).
 
In
R. McCarty said:
512-Byte Cluster size and a 160 Gigabyte partition isn't a good
combination. You've likely got MFT problems.


*I* have? I wasn't recommending this, I was explaining how to
avoid 512-byte clusters, and get the standard 4K ones.

I don't even have a 160GB drive.
 
Quoth The Raven "R. McCarty said:
512-Byte Cluster size and a 160 Gigabyte partition isn't a good
combination. You've likely got MFT problems. The default MFT
allocation table size probably isn't large enough to accommodate
512-Byte clusters. A defrag (any defrag) on this drive is going to
take a very long time to complete.
You're best option is to backup the data, and repartition & format
the drive. Personally, I wouldn't use a 160-Gig drive as a single
Primary disk partition, but segment it into multiple disks. For any
partitions that might hold Video or Music format them with a larger
cluster size than 4-K. (But that's a whole different debate issue).

yeah, I'm working on backing up all the data to format it again, thankfully
it's not the primary disk, its only the slave.
 
In
R. McCarty said:
No Ken, I wasn't replying to you, but the original poster.


OK, but you did reply to *my* message, making it look like you
were addressing me.
 
Back
Top