Problem Defragging Large File

[ColTom2]

Hi:

I had a file that was over 13BG in size and the Windows defrag process
went fine defragging the file per se. However, when the defrag process tried
to move this large file it always hung up at 3%. As long as the file itself
was being defragged everything was OK, but when it came to trying to move
this file is where it always hung up.

Does anyone have a solution to defragging a large file of this size within
Windows XP?

Thanks

 

[Bill in Co.]

Hi:

I had a file that was over 13BG in size and the Windows defrag process
went fine defragging the file per se. However, when the defrag process
tried
to move this large file it always hung up at 3%. As long as the file
itself
was being defragged everything was OK, but when it came to trying to move
this file is where it always hung up.

Does anyone have a solution to defragging a large file of this size
within
Windows XP?

Thanks

That may well depend on just how much clear *unfragmented* disk space you
have left on your hard disk. If you don't have enough, it won't be able to
move it. 13 GB is really large; do you have a LOT of free, unfragmented,
disk space left on your hard drive for it do this on?

 

[Gerry]

Tom

Bill is right but even with a lot of contiguous free space it may be
difficult. One way, which might work, would be to move the file out of
the partition. Run Disk Defragmenter to maximise contiguous free disk
space in the partition. Then before doing anything else copy the file
back to the partition so that it is written into the contiguous free
disk space.

--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[ColTom2]

I thought afterwards about doing exactly what you indicated in moving the
file. I could just burn the file, remove it, defrag, and then restore the
file immediately afterwards and I believe that would work.

I have a 250GB hard drive with less than 50 GB used so that is not a
problem.

The problem was defrag in trying to move one file of over 13GB which it just
hung and apparently really can't handle in a timely fashion.

Thanks so much for your input.

I have a 250GB hard drive so that is not the problem,
Tom

Bill is right but even with a lot of contiguous free space it may be
difficult. One way, which might work, would be to move the file out of
the partition. Run Disk Defragmenter to maximise contiguous free disk
space in the partition. Then before doing anything else copy the file
back to the partition so that it is written into the contiguous free
disk space.

--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Gerry]

Tom

If you try it please let us know how it works out.


--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Try downloading a trial copy of PerfectDisk or Diskeeper and letting it
defrag the file. You can uninstall the software afterwards. Either of
those defraggers are excellent at this particular type of defragging.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Probably be less and wear and tear (and faster!!) to do it the way Gerry
mentioned, however.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

It doesn't matter how he does it because a heavily fragged drive will suffer
far more wear and tear from head movement than any defragging operation will
ever cause. The easiest tip for reducing fragmentation in the first place
is to avoid using the Save command and stick to Save As. That way the new
or edited file is always contiguous.

 

[Bill in Co.]

But see, if he removes and deletes the file, and then runs defrag, there
won't be much there to defrag so it will be fast, and then when he copies it
back *to a freshly defragmented drive*, it should be stored there in
contiguous sectors, right?

ALSO:
"Save as" always stores a contiguous file? And "save" doesn't? I
didn't know that. Do you have some reference article on that? (I'm
assuming we're not talking about just overwriting an existing file when
using Save, which may be different)

 

[Gerry]

Colin

Your Save / Save As is a discussion point for another time. It has no
bearing on the problem raised by ColTom2.



~~~~


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

It is how the two commands have always worked and why when you use the Save
As command you are prompted if the file already exists as to whether or not
you want to replace the existing one.

The Save command only saves the changes to the file and saves them in the
next available place large enough for the fragment. That can be anywhere on
the drive. The file manager then records a link and the next time the file
is read into memory the file system follows the links until all of the file
is in memory. That's what causes the heads to sometimes skip all over the
place when loading the file and why it takes a long time and a lot of disk
activity to load some files.

If the file is a series of fragments scattered all over the drive then
selecting Save As will write a new, contiguous copy in a location that can
hold it, thus eliminating the need for links. The file manager then marks
the old pieces as available and the next defrag will consolidate these
pieces of free space into larger contiguous areas available for writes. In
the meantime disk performance improves because the drive heads are moving
far less, shortening access time and reducing wear and tear. There is no
downside that I know of to using Save As except the additional step of
confirming the "overwrite". No overwrite takes place, of course, since it
is a new write. "Overwrite" is just an anecdotal descriptor for what really
happens.

This is a very old computer tip that is still valid. If you search the web
though you will see explanations of the difference between the two commands
as simply being that Save As offers the opportunity to create a new copy
while keeping the old one by changing the file name. That is one of the
reasons to sometimes use Save As but by no means the most useful IMHO.

It is understanding what the Save command does NOT do that is the key. It
does not save the entire file, but only the changes from the current
session. These are not written into the existing file but in a new location
large enough to hold the changes.

 

[Bill Sharpe]

It is how the two commands have always worked and why when you use the
Save As command you are prompted if the file already exists as to
whether or not you want to replace the existing one.

The Save command only saves the changes to the file and saves them in
the next available place large enough for the fragment. That can be
anywhere on the drive. The file manager then records a link and the
next time the file is read into memory the file system follows the links
until all of the file is in memory. That's what causes the heads to
sometimes skip all over the place when loading the file and why it takes
a long time and a lot of disk activity to load some files.

If the file is a series of fragments scattered all over the drive then
selecting Save As will write a new, contiguous copy in a location that
can hold it, thus eliminating the need for links. The file manager then
marks the old pieces as available and the next defrag will consolidate
these pieces of free space into larger contiguous areas available for
writes. In the meantime disk performance improves because the drive
heads are moving far less, shortening access time and reducing wear and
tear. There is no downside that I know of to using Save As except the
additional step of confirming the "overwrite". No overwrite takes
place, of course, since it is a new write. "Overwrite" is just an
anecdotal descriptor for what really happens.

This is a very old computer tip that is still valid. If you search the
web though you will see explanations of the difference between the two
commands as simply being that Save As offers the opportunity to create a
new copy while keeping the old one by changing the file name. That is
one of the reasons to sometimes use Save As but by no means the most
useful IMHO.

It is understanding what the Save command does NOT do that is the key.
It does not save the entire file, but only the changes from the current
session. These are not written into the existing file but in a new
location large enough to hold the changes.

If you don't change the file name, I would think "save as" would work
the same way as "save." If you do change the file name, yes, I'd expect
a contiguous file to be created. However, Save is a much faster
operation, Ctrl-S, with no dialog box to fill out.

Bill

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Save As always saves the whole file. When you confirm usage of the existing
file name it still writes a fresh, contiguous copy file and marks the old
one for deletion. When you change the filename it writes the new file with
the new name but does not mark the old one for deletion.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Save As always saves the whole file. When you confirm usage of the
existing
file name it still writes a fresh, contiguous copy file and marks the old
one for deletion.

Are you sure? And you're also saying that just using SAVE will NOT do
that? (in both cases using the same file name of a file that is already on
the disk)

When you change the filename it writes the new file with
the new name but does not mark the old one for deletion.

But in both cases above, we're NOT changing the filename.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Actually, I'm pretty certain I was right the first time. There is NO
difference between using "Save" and "Save As", EXCEPT for allowing for a
different filename.

If the file is already there and fragmented, and you save over it (either
way!), it will STAY fragmented.

If the file isn't there, and you save it, it makes no difference which way
you save it.

If I'm wrong, show me the site supporting that.

And the fact that the operating system marks the first cluster to indicate
the file is deleted has nothing to do with this *specific* discussion.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Save As doesn't save over it. It saves in a new location regardless of
whether you give it a new filename or not. The difference is whether or not
the old copy stays (if you give a new name) or is marked for deletion.

 

[Bill in Co.]

I don't think that's true (that "Save As" saves in a new location, and Save
doesn't). In either case, if the file exists, it will be overwritten in
the same location(s), to the best of my knowledge (meaning it will be
fragmented, too, since the operating system just looks for free clusters).

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Save As saves a contiguous file in a new location. Save saves only the
changes in a new location.

 

[Gerry]

Colin

What you say about Save As depends on how large the file is and whether
the next available free disk space is of sufficient size to accomodate
the file.

--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Bill in Co.]

Cite, please?

Save As saves a contiguous file in a new location. Save saves only the
changes in a new location.