How to speed up defragmentation process

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Running xp home using P4 2.8 GHz and 512MB Ram. Defrag my C: drive ( about 40
GB hdd) and in 1hr 30 min, it only defrag 6% (33% free space 13 GB). Is there
anywhere I can speed up this process
 
Richard

Run Disk Defragmenter more frequently?

You should also run Disk Clean Up before running Disk Defragmenter or
chkdsk. It helps remove potential problems.

You should use Disk CleanUp regularly to Empty your Recycle Bin and
Remove Temporary Internet Files. Whenever you remove redundant files you
should always run Disk Defragmenter by selecting Start, All Programs,
Accessories, System Tools, Disk Defragmenter.

Also select Start, All Programs, Accessories, System Tools, Disk CleanUp,
More Options, System Restore and remove all but the latest System
Restore points? Restore points can be quite large.

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
richardwl561 said:
Running xp home using P4 2.8 GHz and 512MB Ram. Defrag my C: drive ( about
40
GB hdd) and in 1hr 30 min, it only defrag 6% (33% free space 13 GB). Is
there
anywhere I can speed up this process
Click to expand...

WinXP usually defrags best in safe mode, even then it is a slow process.
There are 3rd party defraggers such as Diskkeeper and PerfectDisk but
although a bit faster they are still relatively slow. It helps to turn off
any applications/processes that might be accessing the hard drive as these
will slow the process.
 
Stop using the built-in Defrag utility. Locate a third party defrag utility
like Diskkeeper.
 
Run it in Safe mode to prevent a lot of unnecessary stuff running in the
background. Is DMA mode working? Look in Device manager at the IDE channel.
 
richardwl561 said:
Running xp home using P4 2.8 GHz and 512MB Ram. Defrag my C: drive ( about 40
GB hdd) and in 1hr 30 min, it only defrag 6% (33% free space 13 GB). Is there
anywhere I can speed up this process
Click to expand...

Is your harddisk FAT32 by any chance? In my experience, defragging
FAT32 is excruciatingly slow. NTFS is very much faster.
 
How do I know Is DMA mode working.? Looking at the Pri IDE channel,
under Advance tag :-
Device 0
Device type:- 'gray out'
Transfer Mode:- DMA available
Current Transfer Mode: - Ultra DMA Mode 6

Device 1
Device type: Auto detection
Transfer Mode:- DMA available
Current Transfer Mode: - NOT APPICABLE

Secondary IDE Channel
Device 0
Device type: gray out
Transfer Mode:- PIO only
Current Transfer Mode: - PIO Mode

Device 1
Device type: gray out
Transfer Mode:- DMA available
Current Transfer Mode: - Multi-Word DMA Mode 2

pc only have 1 hdd disk with only 1 partition (PRI) and 2 cd rom drives (SEC)
-before I started the defrag, I cleared the temp folder, TIF and deleted all
the off line content, clear history. Will do accordingly to your response and
restart the defrag process once I know this info about "DMA" working or not.
Many thanks for all those who have responded.
 
richardwl561 said:
How do I know Is DMA mode working.? Looking at the Pri IDE channel,
under Advance tag :-
Device 0
Device type:- 'gray out'
Transfer Mode:- DMA available
Current Transfer Mode: - Ultra DMA Mode 6
Click to expand...
Clearly this device is using DMA.
Device 1
Device type: Auto detection
Transfer Mode:- DMA available
Current Transfer Mode: - NOT APPICABLE
Click to expand...
Perhaps nothing connected here?
Secondary IDE Channel
Device 0
Device type: gray out
Transfer Mode:- PIO only
Current Transfer Mode: - PIO Mode
Click to expand...
Programmed only for this device. What is connected?
Device 1
Device type: gray out
Transfer Mode:- DMA available
Current Transfer Mode: - Multi-Word DMA Mode 2
Click to expand...
DMA mode here. What is connected here?
pc only have 1 hdd disk with only 1 partition (PRI) and 2 cd rom drives
(SEC)
-before I started the defrag, I cleared the temp folder, TIF and deleted
all
the off line content, clear history. Will do accordingly to your response
and
restart the defrag process once I know this info about "DMA" working or
not.
Many thanks for all those who have responded.
Click to expand...
It may be that the disk is executing in DMA mode, but one of the CD drives
is only using PIO. However, the CD drives are not used for defragmentation
so they don't enter into the problems.
My guess is that the FAT32 file system has more effect than anything else.
Jim
 
DMA is working. Your HD is Device 0
How do I know Is DMA mode working.? Looking at the Pri IDE channel,
under Advance tag :-
Device 0
Device type:- 'gray out'
Transfer Mode:- DMA available
Current Transfer Mode: - Ultra DMA Mode 6

Device 1
Device type: Auto detection
Transfer Mode:- DMA available
Current Transfer Mode: - NOT APPICABLE

Secondary IDE Channel
Device 0
Device type: gray out
Transfer Mode:- PIO only
Current Transfer Mode: - PIO Mode

Device 1
Device type: gray out
Transfer Mode:- DMA available
Current Transfer Mode: - Multi-Word DMA Mode 2

pc only have 1 hdd disk with only 1 partition (PRI) and 2 cd rom drives (SEC)
-before I started the defrag, I cleared the temp folder, TIF and deleted all
the off line content, clear history. Will do accordingly to your response and
restart the defrag process once I know this info about "DMA" working or not.
Many thanks for all those who have responded.


:
Click to expand...
 
richardwl561 said:
Running xp home using P4 2.8 GHz and 512MB Ram. Defrag my C: drive ( about 40
GB hdd) and in 1hr 30 min, it only defrag 6% (33% free space 13 GB). Is there
anywhere I can speed up this process
Click to expand...

With W98 systems, this happens if the screen saver or other software
sporadically writes to the hd; the action restarts the defrag. That
might be happening here too. That's one of the reasons a restart in
Safe Mode helps, to prevent background processes from writing to the hd.
Stop the screen saver in Safe Mode too, to speed up the process.
 
richardwl561 said:
Yes its FAT32
Click to expand...
In my experience, NTFS is superior to FAT32 for most purposes. For
instance, defragging my 80GB HDD NTFS, (approx 50 per cent free space)
has never taken more than 15min.
FAT32 is needed only if you are using Windows-98 or a dual boot system
with 98SE and XP-Pro. There, 98SE partition has to be FAT32. It appears
from your posts that you are using only XP, not 98. I suggest,
therefore, that you should consider converting to NTFS. You might like
to see "How to convert a FAT16 volume or a FAT32 volume to an NTFS file
system in Windows XP" at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307881.
Must add I AM NOT AN EXPERT, only an experienced user. I wish the
genuine experts on this list would comment.
 
In my experience, NTFS is superior to FAT32 for most purposes. For
instance, defragging my 80GB HDD NTFS, (approx 50 per cent free space)
has never taken more than 15min.
FAT32 is needed only if you are using Windows-98 or a dual boot system
with 98SE and XP-Pro. There, 98SE partition has to be FAT32. It appears
from your posts that you are using only XP, not 98. I suggest,
therefore, that you should consider converting to NTFS. You might like
to see "How to convert a FAT16 volume or a FAT32 volume to an NTFS file
system in Windows XP" at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307881.
Must add I AM NOT AN EXPERT, only an experienced user. I wish the
genuine experts on this list would comment.
Click to expand...

NTFS is superior to Fat32. To switch over do the following:

1. Click Start
2. Select Run from the Start menu
3. Type cmd in the textbox and click OK
4. In the command window that opens type the following:

convert c: /fs:ntfs

This is a non-destructive conversion so you will not lose any data or
configurations.

Also I would defrag in the Safe Mode which is much faster then
defragging while the complete OS is running. Another consideration (if
your not already) try out diskeeper. It is a far superior defragger
then the one built into Windows. Disckeeper has a set it and forget it
mode whereby it will defrag on next reboot BEFORE windows is loaded.

Good Luck,

Trev
 
Trevor

"It is a far superior defragger then the one built into Windows. "

So what? There are many ways to tackle this issue and why
pay more for something that is a non-essential!

Put the money towards more RAM for one. Another option is to buy
a hard drive with a faster read / write speed.

Run Disk Defragmenter when you would not otherwise be using
your computer!

The Defragmenter with Windows does not defragment the page file.
Fragmentation of the pagefile does not matter if it is in it's own
partition.

Organise your hard drive so that files that rapidly fragment are in a
separate partition from system or archived files. Users often place
the page file in it's own partition but the same point extends to news
and mail folders. This certainly applies to Outlook Express and no
doubt equally to Forte Agent. Remember any file constantly being
written to will cause any large file written to only occasionally to
fragment. Fragmentation will be pronounced if there is minimal
free disk space. Defragging part of the drive takes much less time
than the whole!

--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Trevor said:
NTFS is superior to Fat32. To switch over do the following:

1. Click Start
2. Select Run from the Start menu
3. Type cmd in the textbox and click OK
4. In the command window that opens type the following:

convert c: /fs:ntfs
Click to expand...


Although that works, it almost always results in 512-byte clusters instead
of the default 4K ones, and that has a negative impact on performance. Read
here *before* converting: http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfscvt.htm

This is a non-destructive conversion so you will not lose any data or
configurations.
Click to expand...


Words like that scare me. There is always risk of losing *everything*.
Conversion is a big step, affecting everything on your drive. When you take
such a big step, no matter how unlikely, it is always possible that
something could go wrong. For that reason, it's prudent to make sure you
have a backup of anything you can't afford to lose before beginning.
 
Ken

Extract from your link:
There are a couple of things to do in advance if the conversion is to be
efficient.

If you do not take these preliminary steps, you are liable to end up with
only 512

byte clusters, which is not a good idea.


--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Back
Top