Defragging to maximize "available" free space

[PaulFXH]

Hi

My system disk (80 GB) has more than 60 GB free and I'm preparing to
partition it into two 40 GB drives.
However, after partitioning 3-4 times with Diskeeper Lite, although
there are no fragmented files remaining, the existing files are in
blocks which are spread over the first 50GB of the disk, with much free
space in between the blocks.
The consequence of this is that only about 25-30 GB is available for
the new drive.

From what I can make out from the graphical representation of file

distribution of the HD, two blocks of "unmovable files" are positioned
inconveniently distant from the start of the disk which contributes
greatly to the limited space availability for the new drive.
Can anybody advise me on options for positioning these files in order
to facilitate the intended partitioning plan?

TIA
Paul

Dell 4550 Desktop
WinXP Home SP2
CPU P4, 2.53 GHz
1.0 GB RAM
Int HD 80 GB ntfs, non-partitioned
Ext HD 160 GB ntfs, 3 partitions
Ext HD 250 GB ntfs, 4 partitions

 

[Richard Urban]

You have the concept of partitioning a bit incorrect.

Yes, it is desirable to defrag a drive prior to repartitioning it. But, as
you have found out, the drive may still not be perfect in that all the files
may not be consolidated.

It doesn't matter, if you use a quality product such as Partition Magic
(version 8.01 or later please). The program, which you run from the floppy
disk set you create from within the Windows installation of the program, is
what you want.

Boot your computer from disk 1, insert disk 2 when instructed to do so.
Choose your partition and shrink the partition. This may take hours, but
Partition Magic does not care that there are holes between the files. It
just slows the process down.

When you are done, you now create a new partition in the free, unallocated,
space you just created. Then you format the partition.

When you boot up into Windows again, defragment the hard drive, as
everything "will" be changed.



--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Guest]

Hi Paul:

I assume that you meant "defragmenting 3-4 times", *not* partitioning. It
does not matter that you have blocks of *whole* files which are separated
from each other. Neither does it matter that the blocks of files are not
near the "beginning" of the disk. The main purpose of defragmenting is to
take little pieces of a file that have been written in various places on a
disk (for various reasons) and place them contiguously one right behind the
other so that the tiny little head which reads the file does not have to
travel quite as far to read all the pieces of one file.

As far as defragging causing loss of free space, I cannot imagine how this
could happen. I believe-- if you have in fact lost free space-- the culprit
is something else, NOT defragging.

Also, keep in mind that the graphics that your defragger presents of what
your hdd looks like is not literal. It is purely an invention of your defrag
software and is more for your elucidation than an assist for any defrag or
partition effort. i.e., you cannot discern what your newly partitioned drive
will look like by simply "drawing a line" down the middle of the graph
presented by your defragger. Once you have partitioned the space into the
partitions that you want, all such graphic representations of you hdd will
change to reflect the new reality.

Finally, paritioning a drive which is part of a multi-hdd system greatly
increases the possibility of inintended consequences. Two precautions before
you start:

Of course make sure you have reliable backups of all partitions on all
drives and ..

By reading the partition software docs thoroughly, make sure you understand
the consequences of partitioning for all drives on your system.

Hope that helps. If you have more questions, plese post again.

Mark

 

[PaulFXH]

You have the concept of partitioning a bit incorrect.

Yes, it is desirable to defrag a drive prior to repartitioning it. But, as
you have found out, the drive may still not be perfect in that all the files
may not be consolidated.

It doesn't matter, if you use a quality product such as Partition Magic
(version 8.01 or later please). The program, which you run from the floppy
disk set you create from within the Windows installation of the program, is
what you want.

Boot your computer from disk 1, insert disk 2 when instructed to do so.
Choose your partition and shrink the partition. This may take hours, but
Partition Magic does not care that there are holes between the files. It
just slows the process down.

When you are done, you now create a new partition in the free, unallocated,
space you just created. Then you format the partition.

When you boot up into Windows again, defragment the hard drive, as
everything "will" be changed.

Hi Richard
Thanks for your reply.
As I have no intention of partitioning any of my HDs on a regular
basis, I am unlikely to splash out big bucks on something like
Partition Magic.
Indeed, my two external HDs were partitioned with Seagate DiskWizard
(which is free) even though only one of my HDs is Seagate.
However, partitioning the system disk will require a non-destructive
partitioning tool which Diskwizard is not.
My intention is to use GPartEd (a free Linux product) as the reason for
re-sizing the system drive is to dual boot with Linux.

From the tutorial video I watched on this, it sure doesn't take hours

but requires the "occupied" part of the disk to be both defragged and
consolidated.
Paul

 

[PaulFXH]

Hi Paul:

I assume that you meant "defragmenting 3-4 times", *not* partitioning.

Hi Mark
Thanks for your comments.
Yes, I did mean "defragging" rather than "partitioning".

It

does not matter that you have blocks of *whole* files which are separated
from each other. Neither does it matter that the blocks of files are not
near the "beginning" of the disk. The main purpose of defragmenting is to
take little pieces of a file that have been written in various places on a
disk (for various reasons) and place them contiguously one right behind the
other so that the tiny little head which reads the file does not have to
travel quite as far to read all the pieces of one file.

As far as defragging causing loss of free space, I cannot imagine how this
could happen. I believe-- if you have in fact lost free space-- the culprit
is something else, NOT defragging.

I haven't actually lost anything at all, yet. This possibility is just
a result of my ruminations on the matter.
My intention is to use GPartEd to re-size the C: drive. This will
involve dragging the RHS edge of the (graphically represented drive) to
where I want it. I am presuming that the "unmovable" files on this
drive will NOT move as I drag the edge toward the LHS. This would
therefore mean that I could only liberate about 25-30GB of space for a
new partition instead of something around 60GB that actually is free.

Also, keep in mind that the graphics that your defragger presents of what
your hdd looks like is not literal. It is purely an invention of your defrag
software and is more for your elucidation than an assist for any defrag or
partition effort. i.e., you cannot discern what your newly partitioned drive
will look like by simply "drawing a line" down the middle of the graph
presented by your defragger. Once you have partitioned the space into the
partitions that you want, all such graphic representations of you hdd will
change to reflect the new reality.

OK, here it sounds like you're saying that my deductions are, in fact,
incorrect in which case I don't have a problem (or at least, very much
less of a problem).

Finally, paritioning a drive which is part of a multi-hdd system greatly
increases the possibility of inintended consequences. Two precautions before
you start:

Of course make sure you have reliable backups of all partitions on all
drives and ..

By reading the partition software docs thoroughly, make sure you understand
the consequences of partitioning for all drives on your system.

I have read quite a bit on this topic and have already partitioned my
two external HDs without problems or any adverse consequences. I
realize that non-destructively partitioning the system disk is a
different kettle of fish but, based on what i have read (and seen), I
am not expecting any problems that cannot be rectified through backups.

Hope that helps. If you have more questions, plese post again.

Yes, it does. Thanks again

Paul

 

[Guest]

Hi Paul:

I think you are doing things the right way-- especially the "ruminating" as
you called it. Very few operations are more "invasive" and potentially
destructive than re-sizing a partition(s) that has data on it. Keep reading
until you are sure you understand all the caveats (there are many).

I read in your reply to Richard that you are planning a dual boot system
with Linux. I am not a Linux user and I am not familiar with GpartEd but I
believe the Linux installation process might be capable of doing all that you
desire here. I know that the XP installation CD is quite good (with
knowledgable user input) at dancing around other O/S which already exist on a
particular hdd during installation. It might be a good question for a Linux
newsgroup.

As I said, I am not familiar with Linux or GpartEd but I can tell you that
Partition Magic would not lose any but the tiniest bit of free space on your
hdd (less than the size of a cluster I think) and would automatically set up
the partition you select for use by Linux. PM also has a multi-boot manager
called BootMagic which I believe comes "free" on the same CD. I don't use it
because all my O/S are MS-based which manage themselves just fine, but it
might be just the thing for a Linux/MS boot. Again, good question for a
Linux group.

Glad to hear you are backed up. That can sometimes be the only solution to
a partition operation gone bad.

As far as the files marked "unmovable", dont' worry about where the red
block of data *appears* to be on the graph. A good, non-destructive
partition manager will know what to do with them.

I hope you will keep us posted as to progress and final results.

Mark

 

[PaulFXH]

I hope you will keep us posted as to progress and final results.

Hi Mark
Well, I've done what I had intended wrt partitioning the system disk
and, as a result, I have now installed Ubuntu Linux as part of a dual
boot system with WinXP.
I honestly had no problems and the whole procedure was very
straightforward.
I used GPartEd (Gnome Partition Editor) to re-size the main partition
in my system disk. This could hardly have been simpler.
BTW, what you said about my attaching too much significance to the
graphical representation of the arrangement of files on the disk after
defragging seems to be true. Thus while Diskeeper showed the files on
the disk to be far from consolidated after defragging, GPartEd showed
them all (including the unmovable files) as being conglomerated into
one block at the beginning of the disk.
Although I could have used GPartEd to do the actual partitioning, I
chose to let the Ubuntu Install procedure take care of this which it
did admirably.
Thanks a lot for your help
Paul