cant defrag 160g sata?

[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

 

[Rick Merrill]

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?

 

[Highlandish]

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

 

[Plato]

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.

 

[Ken Blake]

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.

 

[Highlandish]

In


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.

but would this prevent defragging the drive?

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Quoth The Raven "Ken Blake <[email protected]>"
in
ejV2X1%[email protected]

but would this prevent defragging the drive?

Why?

 

[R. McCarty]

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).

 

[Ken Blake]

In

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.

 

[R. McCarty]

No Ken, I wasn't replying to you, but the original poster.

 

[Highlandish]

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.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

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.