defragmenting question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linea Recta
  • Start date Start date
L

Linea Recta

I use Windows 2000SP4 for video editing purposes and have several hard disks
formatted in NTFS.
To optimize performance I defragment periodically with Norton Speed disk.
But after defragmenting I still have a lot of blocks scattered all over the
free space (unmovable or system file). Analysis learns that it refers to:

\$MFT
whatever that is... Can't find it with explorer displaying invisible files.

After reformatting the drive they were gone for some time, but the unmovable
blocks start appearing again (after defragmenting!). Of coarse I don't want
to keep reformatting, so how can I master this defragmenting mess?

Don't know wether it is related, but I also use norton antivirus and norton
internet security 2003, which I disable during defragmenting.



--
regards,

|\ /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os

mccm dot vos at hccnet dot nl
URL http://home.hccnet.nl/mccm.vos/

ICQ 326628
 
$MFT is a special NTFS file called the Master File Table. This is a file
that contains information about all the files on your disk. This file is
non-moveable because the filesystem needs to know how to find at least one
file (the MFT) and use it to find all the other file though they can move
around. Only applications that access volumes directly can access the MFT
and ever need to. Hope that answers you question
 
Linea Recta said:
I use Windows 2000SP4 for video editing purposes and have several hard disks
formatted in NTFS.
To optimize performance I defragment periodically with Norton Speed disk.
But after defragmenting I still have a lot of blocks scattered all over the
free space (unmovable or system file). Analysis learns that it refers to:

\$MFT
whatever that is... Can't find it with explorer displaying invisible files.

After reformatting the drive they were gone for some time, but the unmovable
blocks start appearing again (after defragmenting!). Of coarse I don't want
to keep reformatting, so how can I master this defragmenting mess?

Don't know wether it is related, but I also use norton antivirus and norton
internet security 2003, which I disable during defragmenting.
Click to expand...

1. If you haven't already, dedicate one or more of your drives
just to video capture/editing. Don't store any other files on them.
This will help reduce fragmentation.

2. MFT$ is the NTFS file table, and it's normal for this to be
spread all over a drive.

3. Use PerfectDisk or another third-party defrag utility which
consolidates free space.
 
In
Linea Recta said:
\$MFT
Click to expand...

That would be your master file table or an index of frequently used system
files and indexes. I don't think that Norton's utility has the ability to
defrag it? There are other software solutions that do and you probably won't
need to use them constantly so you should be able to get a trial version and
do the job if you'd like.

Take a look here at this site and it might give you a bit of help:

http://www.itworld.com/App/4117/NWW01041100636262/

The tools that I use O&O Defrag will do the job but it's not free. You could
use the trial for this however.

Galen
--

"My mind rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me work, give me
the most abstruse cryptogram or the most intricate analysis, and I am
in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then with artificial
stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence. I crave for
mental exaltation." -- Sherlock Holmes
 
I use Windows 2000SP4 for video editing purposes and have several hard
disks
formatted in NTFS.
To optimize performance I defragment periodically with Norton Speed disk.
But after defragmenting I still have a lot of blocks scattered all over the
free space (unmovable or system file). Analysis learns that it refers to:

\$MFT
whatever that is... Can't find it with explorer displaying invisible
Click to expand...
files.

As others have said, it's the master file table. Some defrag utilities can
defrag it such as the recently upgraded Diskeeper 9.0. When I upgraded I
defragged the MFT but saw no noticible difference in performance. As others
have said and as I'm sure your doing, keep your video files on separate
disks on separate controllers. Keep those defragged as well as your system
disk and don't worry about the fragementation of the MFT.
 
Norton Ghost "backups" are defragged. So if you run a ghost backup, then
restore from it, your partition/drive will be defragged
 
No they won't! They will be completely and uterlessly fragmented. As
they have been since Windows 95.

Another John
 
John John said:
No they won't! They will be completely and uterlessly fragmented. As
they have been since Windows 95.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. Default options in Ghost will backup/restore
a _defragmented_ image. However if you use Ghost's forensic
options (-ia, -ib, -id etc) it will copy/restore sector-by-sector --
in that case the restored image will be just as fragmented as the
backup.
 
John John said:
I wouldn't use Ghost for forensic purposes. That's Encase territory.
Click to expand...

I mentioned forensic copy options only to correct your misinformation
about Ghost. It's the only way to get Ghost to restore a fragmented
image.
 
If you can't be bothered restoring (to defrag the main drive), you can just
keep your main drive and your backup drive(s) in removable drawers
(caddies). Run a backup, then use the (fully defragged) backup drive as your
main drive, and start using the main drive as a backup drive.
 
Jimmy said:
1. If you haven't already, dedicate one or more of your drives
just to video capture/editing.
Click to expand...


I did.

Don't store any other files on them.
Click to expand...


That's asking a lot...

This will help reduce fragmentation.

2. MFT$ is the NTFS file table, and it's normal for this to be
spread all over a drive.
Click to expand...


and so reduces the speed for writing large files...

3. Use PerfectDisk or another third-party defrag utility which
consolidates free space.
Click to expand...



--
regards,

|\ /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os

mccm dot vos at hccnet dot nl
URL http://home.hccnet.nl/mccm.vos/

ICQ 326628
 
Galen said:
In

That would be your master file table or an index of frequently used system
files and indexes. I don't think that Norton's utility has the ability to
defrag it? There are other software solutions that do and you probably won't
need to use them constantly so you should be able to get a trial version and
do the job if you'd like.

Take a look here at this site and it might give you a bit of help:

http://www.itworld.com/App/4117/NWW01041100636262/
Click to expand...


Gosh, that ain't going to be simple... What have I done...



--
regards,

|\ /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os

mccm dot vos at hccnet dot nl
URL http://home.hccnet.nl/mccm.vos/

ICQ 326628
 
Chuck U. Farley said:
files.

As others have said, it's the master file table. Some defrag utilities can
defrag it such as the recently upgraded Diskeeper 9.0. When I upgraded I
defragged the MFT but saw no noticible difference in performance. As others
have said and as I'm sure your doing, keep your video files on separate
disks

Yes...


on separate controllers.
Click to expand...


No... I've been told that connecting a DVD drive on a controller together
with a hard disk, slows down the speed of the latter. Hence I have 2 hard
disks on controller 0 and a DVD drive and DVD rewriter on controller 1.

Keep those defragged as well as your system
disk and don't worry about the fragementation of the MFT.
Click to expand...


It all started when I noticed decreasing performance of the second hard disk
(non system disk) both UDMA5, even after defragmenting with norton
speeddisk.


--
regards,

|\ /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os

mccm dot vos at hccnet dot nl
URL http://home.hccnet.nl/mccm.vos/

ICQ 326628
 
Linea said:
Speed refers As


No... I've been told that connecting a DVD drive on a controller together
with a hard disk, slows down the speed of the latter. Hence I have 2 hard
disks on controller 0 and a DVD drive and DVD rewriter on controller 1.


It all started when I noticed decreasing performance of the second hard disk
(non system disk) both UDMA5, even after defragmenting with norton
speeddisk.


--
regards,

|\ /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os

mccm dot vos at hccnet dot nl
URL http://home.hccnet.nl/mccm.vos/

ICQ 326628
Click to expand...



Running any two drives off one controller has the potential for
reducing the performance of the drives. Keeping the hard drive on one
controller and the burner on another controller gives best results for
burning cd or dvd.

One configuration I have seen that works well is to install a hard
drive with its own controller. Use that only for the project in
process. When the project is finished delete all files on it.

I have found this faster than defragging a big drive.

With the costs of drives these days its less than $100 to set this up.
 
In
Gosh, that ain't going to be simple... What have I done...
Click to expand...

Grab a trial version of something like O&O defrag and use that. :) If you
like it buy it. If not use the trial to defrag and you should be all set.

Galen
--

"My mind rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me work, give me
the most abstruse cryptogram or the most intricate analysis, and I am
in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then with artificial
stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence. I crave for
mental exaltation." -- Sherlock Holmes
 
No... I've been told that connecting a DVD drive on a controller together
with a hard disk, slows down the speed of the latter. Hence I have 2 hard
disks on controller 0 and a DVD drive and DVD rewriter on controller 1.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. With the advent of busmastering on the 440BX mobo (circa Pentium
400 mHz days ~ 5 years ago I think), the controller supports independant
timing of each device attached on the channel so there is no fallback to the
slowest device on the channel as there was before this chipset.

It all started when I noticed decreasing performance of the second hard disk
(non system disk) both UDMA5, even after defragmenting with norton
speeddisk.
Click to expand...

This is not related to a fragmented MFT on your main drive.
 
Chuck U. Farley said:
Incorrect. With the advent of busmastering on the 440BX mobo (circa Pentium
400 mHz days ~ 5 years ago I think), the controller supports independant
timing of each device attached on the channel so there is no fallback to the
slowest device on the channel as there was before this chipset.
Click to expand...


Does that include my Asus P4B266 - cpu: Intel P4 1,6 GHz.? So in that case
the mentioned configuration doesn't matter?


This is not related to a fragmented MFT on your main drive.
Click to expand...


No, it is related to performance.



--
regards,

|\ /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os

mccm dot vos at hccnet dot nl
URL http://home.hccnet.nl/mccm.vos/

ICQ 326628
 
Does that include my Asus P4B266 - cpu: Intel P4 1,6 GHz.? So in that case
the mentioned configuration doesn't matter?
Click to expand...

Correct, on your mobo each device attached to the controller will run at
it's top speed regardless of the speed of the other attached device.
 
Back
Top