Defrag

J

John Callaway

When I defrag ny laptop (XP SP2), I notice two large green blocks. I
assumed that is the page file area. Is there any way to keep them
together instead of separate? There was just one before I increased
the page file size, so I guess instead of adding it to the same area ,
it created a new separate area.

JPC
 
L

Leonard Grey

There might be third-party software that can do that...but why do you
think it matters?
 
T

Twayne

In
John Callaway said:
When I defrag ny laptop (XP SP2), I notice two large green
blocks. I assumed that is the page file area. Is there any
way to keep them together instead of separate? There was
just one before I increased the page file size, so I guess
instead of adding it to the same area , it created a new
separate area.

JPC

IF it's the pagefile area, or anything, really, two blocks of data are
negilgible. The aren't slowing anything down perceptibly and are not causing
any problems. Nothing to fix or worry about.
Depending on some things about/on your drive, you might get them
contiguous again by killing the swapfile, rebooting three times, and the
recreating the swap file again. But it's a lot of work that might be for
naught since you aren't sure what it is.

HTH,

Twayne`
 
T

Tim Meddick

As you know, you cannot defragment your page file while Windows is running.

However, if you would like your page-file to be defragmented, then you can
download "page defrag" (pagedfrg.exe) by Sysinternals (a former division of
Microsoft).

A small, very easy to use application that writes an entry in the registry
to execute itself at the same point in the boot process where "chkdsk" runs
(when configured to) before the pagefile becomes "locked" by Windows
starting.

Just start the application while Windows is running and specify where the
pagefile is located, tick the "Run on every boot" check-box, and it will
automatically run next, and every time Windows starts-up.

Direct download link for Page Defrag :
http://live.sysinternals.com/Files/PageDefrag.zip

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :)
 
T

Twayne

It's a negligible "problem" with no downsides so I'd wonder about the value
of adding another startup item from a third party to the boot process.
Unless the disk is way over 50% full, a kill of the pagefile, restart,
defrag, and put the pafegile back on will do it. Once it's set in place, a
pagefile is very unlikely to become fragmented until disk space is almost
gone and windows can no longer centralize the pagefile's location on the
disk.


In
 
T

Tim Meddick

I take the point about the value of defragmenting the page file, however,
I'm sure there are certain circumstances where it could become an issue.
But that is BTP as the OP wanted to know "how to" something, and all I'm
doing is informing him "how to" do just that.

But about it being "another startup item from a third party"

Firstly, it is written by the same team who develop Windows. Although,
strictly speaking Sysinternals has split financially from Microsoft, many
of it's team members are still closely involved with M$.

Also, it would not be classed as a "start-up item" like other start-up
items and does not have to compete with other applications or the boot-up
process itself, as it uses the Win32 API and executes well before the
[Windows] shell is even loaded (i.e. well before the "Welcome" screen
appears).

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :)
 
T

Twayne

In
Tim Meddick said:
I take the point about the value of defragmenting the page
file, however, I'm sure there are certain circumstances
where it could become an issue. But that is BTP as the OP
wanted to know "how to" something, and all I'm doing is
informing him "how to" do just that.

No problem, Tim. I'd have directed it right at the OP if any of the prior
posts were still showing but figured addressing it to you would at least
give you a heads up that I was saying something a little different. 6 of
one ...
But about it being "another startup item from a third party"

Firstly, it is written by the same team who develop
Windows. Although, strictly speaking Sysinternals has split
financially from Microsoft, many of it's team members are
still closely involved with M$.

Actually, it was not; it was written prior to the acquision of Sysinternals
by Microsoft, by then Sysinternals employees. So, "many of its team members"
ARE involved with MS completely. It's just another example of Microsoft's
purchasing the competition whenever they can.
I think you have the MS/Sysinternals bit a little mixed up in your head:

Windows Sysinternals[1] is a part of the Microsoft Technet web site which
offers technical resources and utilities to manage, diagnose, troubleshoot
and monitor a Microsoft Windows environment.[1] Originally, the Sysinternals
website (formerly known as "ntinternals"[citation needed]) was created in
1996[1] and was operated by the company Winternals Software LP, which was
located in Austin, Texas. It was started by software developers Bryce
Cogswell and Mark Russinovich.[1] Microsoft acquired Winternals and its
assets on July 18, 2006.[2]
Also, it would not be classed as a "start-up item" like
other start-up items and does not have to compete with
other applications or the boot-up process itself, as it
uses the Win32 API and executes well before the [Windows]
shell is even loaded (i.e. well before the "Welcome" screen
appears).

You completely miss my point, though I really didn't want to dwell on it.
3rd party software adds another layer of things that can go wrong, must be
remembered for trouble-shooting purposes later on, and generally, most
importantly, does nothing that XP cannot do natively and often easily.
People pay money for nothing more than a compiled script that does nothing a
batch file couldn't do.

Windows in general has a lot of weaknesses, but it also has a lot of
strengths, and the majority of 3rd party programs don't address the actual
weaknesses; they address things neophytes might like to know, and would be
happy to know, when it turns out XP could have done the same thing in its
own native environment for zero cost.
Many of them do a disservice to their users because they spent $29.99 for
a program to issue a few commands that would accomplish the same thing in a
batch file or even by just running a command at the command prompt. Speaking
of the command prompt, very few users realize even a third of the commands
it has available; they think it's only for running old "DOS" applications.
And "help" and MS calling it a DOS window doesn't help the masses, either.

"Just one more won't hurt" until the pile of 3rd party apps gets so deep
and so mindlessly intertwined within the OS's activities that even an
experienced PC man can't make sense of it until he gets rid of them.
As for splitting hairs over "when" it loads "where", if the computer is
not 100% ready for use yet, then you are still in the startup portion of
time for the machine. Which of the 5 phases it occurs in doesn't matter to
the user; it's starting up that way so it's part of the startup.


Don't get me wrong; I use a lot of 3rd party apps; for things that windows
can't do for itself or for me. PowerDesk Pro for instance, instead of
windows explorer. If I copy 70 files and one refuses to be copied, it still
copies 69 files and tells me file.ext couln't be copied, unlike Explorer
which just stops copying and issues a terse error message.
I just don't use a 3rd party app when windows can do the same thing it does,
or worse yet, it's just a disguised batch file.

In the end, it's all opinion anyway, so no big deal, but you brought them
up, so I opined a bit on them. Ymmv is aiive and well!

Twayne`
 
J

John Callaway

When I defrag ny laptop (XP SP2), I notice two large green blocks. I
assumed that is the page file area. Is there any way to keep them
together instead of separate? There was just one before I increased
the page file size, so I guess instead of adding it to the same area ,
it created a new separate area.

JPC

Thanks for all the info!

JPC
 
T

Tim Meddick

Twayne,
Again, you keep talking about 3rd-part applications but you
yourself have stated in correcting me, that Sysinternals ARE Microsoft!!

Even if this particular piece of software was originally created before the
2006 acquisition [of Sysinternals] it is still being offered on the website
so is still classed as supported software, ultimately by Microsoft.

So, you can hardly keep calling it 3rd-party software!

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :)
 
T

Twayne

In
Tim Meddick said:
Twayne,
Again, you keep talking about 3rd-part
applications but you yourself have stated in correcting me,
that Sysinternals ARE Microsoft!!
Even if this particular piece of software was originally
created before the 2006 acquisition [of Sysinternals] it is
still being offered on the website so is still classed as
supported software, ultimately by Microsoft.
So, you can hardly keep calling it 3rd-party software!

Let's see; it was written by SysInternals. Microsoft purchased the code so
now the rights belong to MS. MS has not rewritten it, nor have they done
anything to it other than quash competition, so it's still SysInternals in
origin. It remains 3rd party software in that sense.
lol, still, you did do a good nit-pick there! So did I. But the fact
remains, it is still adding a very considerable amount of code for the
workings of the OS from a maintenance and repair view. Added code, more
parts in other words, is more opportunity for failure in a system overall.
Compare it to the tiny amount of code a batch file can often do and
accomplish identical results. The simplest solution is always the best
solution and w/r to an OS, letting the OS do what it can do natively is a
lot more efficient than using external code to accomplish it.

It sort of amuses me that people will even sometimes even pay money for the
"privilege" of getting more code to add to their systems when it's simply a
couple of one-time setting changes in the OS.
I'm going to concede this arguement to you though, because, from a user
viewpoint, the "easiest| thing for them to do is add a program than have to
figure out how to do it the "right" way. That's born out by the fact that
folks will often seek out an automated way to do what they want and they
don't consider having to tweak a setting in their OS as worth their time.
Instead they look for things like tweak-ui et al. That's not something that
will change very soon.

Cheers,

Twayne`
 
T

Tim Meddick

Sorry Twayne,
I don't know what "the right way" (as you call it)
is, in regard to someone who wants to defragment their paging file (for
whatever reason) as far as I know there's only one way available to do
that.

And as for the statement "still adding a very considerable amount of
code" - the file responsible for executing at boot is all of 25kb (is that
large?) and never takes more than a few seconds to complete just after
chkdsk.exe has finished....

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :)




Twayne said:
In
Tim Meddick said:
Twayne,
Again, you keep talking about 3rd-part
applications but you yourself have stated in correcting me,
that Sysinternals ARE Microsoft!!
Even if this particular piece of software was originally
created before the 2006 acquisition [of Sysinternals] it is
still being offered on the website so is still classed as
supported software, ultimately by Microsoft.
So, you can hardly keep calling it 3rd-party software!

Let's see; it was written by SysInternals. Microsoft purchased the code
so now the rights belong to MS. MS has not rewritten it, nor have they
done anything to it other than quash competition, so it's still
SysInternals in origin. It remains 3rd party software in that sense.
lol, still, you did do a good nit-pick there! So did I. But the fact
remains, it is still adding a very considerable amount of code for the
workings of the OS from a maintenance and repair view. Added code, more
parts in other words, is more opportunity for failure in a system
overall. Compare it to the tiny amount of code a batch file can often do
and accomplish identical results. The simplest solution is always the
best solution and w/r to an OS, letting the OS do what it can do natively
is a lot more efficient than using external code to accomplish it.

It sort of amuses me that people will even sometimes even pay money for
the "privilege" of getting more code to add to their systems when it's
simply a couple of one-time setting changes in the OS.
I'm going to concede this arguement to you though, because, from a user
viewpoint, the "easiest| thing for them to do is add a program than have
to figure out how to do it the "right" way. That's born out by the fact
that folks will often seek out an automated way to do what they want and
they don't consider having to tweak a setting in their OS as worth their
time. Instead they look for things like tweak-ui et al. That's not
something that will change very soon.

Cheers,

Twayne`
==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :)
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Page File 5
Defragging 2-TB 80%-Used Disc? 7
defrag not working 2
Copying -vs- defragging? 12
Defrag and a lot stays fragged 15
I can't defrag certain files 3
to defrag or not defrag 1
Disk defragmenter 1

Top