Is this fragmentation picture OK?

[Terry Pinnell]

I defragment daily with Diskeeper. After the last run, as usual, it
reports virtually zero fragmentation. But I don't understand why it
looks such a mess?

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s247/terrypin999/Diskeeper-1.jpg

For example,
1. Why is the 'Contiguous file' space broken up so much?
2. Why are the system files scattered around instead of all being
together?
3. Why are some directories in the lower par and near the end?

 

[Ron Badour]

This would be a question best asked of the makers of Diskeeper,
http://www.diskeeper.com/support/support.aspx?Page=5&Subpage=1&cust=1

--
Regards

Ron Badour
MS MVP
Windows Desktop Experience

 

[Tom Willett]

http://www.diskeeper.com/support/support.aspx?Page=5&Subpage=1&cust=1
:I defragment daily with Diskeeper. After the last run, as usual, it
: reports virtually zero fragmentation. But I don't understand why it
: looks such a mess?
:
: http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s247/terrypin999/Diskeeper-1.jpg
:
: For example,
: 1. Why is the 'Contiguous file' space broken up so much?
: 2. Why are the system files scattered around instead of all being
: together?
: 3. Why are some directories in the lower par and near the end?
:
: --
: Terry, East Grinstead, UK

 

[Gerry]

Terry

A multi fragmented pagefile? Perhaps a result of allowing Windows to
manage the pagefile!


--


Hope this helps.

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

 

[Leonard Grey]

Not only do I allow Windows to manage my page file, I have never
defragmented my page file. And I'll bet my 7-year old computer runs
faster than yours.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

http://www.diskeeper.com/support/support.aspx?Page=5&Subpage=1&cust=1
:I defragment daily with Diskeeper. After the last run, as usual, it
: reports virtually zero fragmentation. But I don't understand why it
: looks such a mess?
:
: http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s247/terrypin999/Diskeeper-1.jpg
:
: For example,
: 1. Why is the 'Contiguous file' space broken up so much?
: 2. Why are the system files scattered around instead of all being
: together?
: 3. Why are some directories in the lower par and near the end?
:
: --
: Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Er, any content..?!

 

[Terry Pinnell]

This would be a question best asked of the makers of Diskeeper,
http://www.diskeeper.com/support/support.aspx?Page=5&Subpage=1&cust=1

Thanks - I already did so. No reply so far. But I'd have thought some
other Diskeeper users here might have an opinion...

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Terry

A multi fragmented pagefile? Perhaps a result of allowing Windows to
manage the pagefile!

Thanks. Page file is on my second (non-OS) HD and looks OK.

 

[Gerry]

Terry

You should have a small 50 mb pagefile on C!

OK the colour coding in Diskeeper is different from Disk Defragmenter. I
did not notice the explanation about colours earlier.

You are not short of free disk space but reserved system space looks a
lot.


--


Hope this helps.

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

 

[Gerry]

Leonard

That's a foolish assertion to make! It is also a pointless one!

--


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

 

[Twayne]

I defragment daily with Diskeeper. After the last run, as usual, it
reports virtually zero fragmentation. But I don't understand why it
looks such a mess?

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s247/terrypin999/Diskeeper-1.jpg

For example,
1. Why is the 'Contiguous file' space broken up so much?
2. Why are the system files scattered around instead of all being
together?
3. Why are some directories in the lower par and near the end?

The files are simply not continguous to each other but they are
apparently defragmented, meaning all together and continguous amongst
themselves.

I don't know why system files are spread all over the disk like that
though, unless it has its own definition for them. System Files should
all be first on the disk.

Run it again and see if the looks satisfy you more but I don't see
anything actually wrong that you showed. If you started with a lot of
fragmentation that might be as far as it could get with only one run;
try another one. If it's not needed it won't hurt anything. And check
your settings of course.

HTH,

Twayne`

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Terry

You should have a small 50 mb pagefile on C!

OK the colour coding in Diskeeper is different from Disk Defragmenter. I
did not notice the explanation about colours earlier.

You are not short of free disk space but reserved system space looks a
lot.

Thanks Gerry. Can you amplify a little please? Why is that necessary,
given that I have a 4GB paging file on I:?

Is it just a matter of going into System Properties > Advanced >
Performance > Settings > Advanced > Virtual Memory > Change, and then
selecting C: and changing from 'No Paging file' to Custom size
(initial size) 50 MB ?

 

[Terry Pinnell]

The files are simply not continguous to each other but they are
apparently defragmented, meaning all together and continguous amongst
themselves.

I don't know why system files are spread all over the disk like that
though, unless it has its own definition for them. System Files should
all be first on the disk.

Run it again and see if the looks satisfy you more but I don't see
anything actually wrong that you showed. If you started with a lot of
fragmentation that might be as far as it could get with only one run;
try another one. If it's not needed it won't hurt anything. And check
your settings of course.

HTH,

Twayne`

Thanks Twayne. Successive runs made no difference ;-(

 

[db]

that's because after
you defrag the disk
or any disk,

it will become fragmented
again as data is processed
by the cpu.

keep in mind that the
disk "will never" be 100%
unfragmented.

---------

for example:

there is no doubt that
diskeeper defragged
your disk.

but after you closed it
or ran another program
or moved the mouse or
your anti virus began
scanning or initiated the
logical events for taking
that jpg you provided;

some files were accessed
and the free space on the
disk was used to store the
data the computer was processing.

the more that data is processed
over time, the more fragmented
your disk becomes.

it is a logically occurrence.
--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- Microsoft Partner
- @hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen

 

[Leythos]

that's because after
you defrag the disk
or any disk,

it will become fragmented
again as data is processed
by the cpu.

keep in mind that the
disk "will never" be 100%
unfragmented.

Lets not forget, you can't defragment some files that are in use - like
SQL Database files....

 

[Robin Bignall]

Thanks Twayne. Successive runs made no difference ;-(

I'm not familiar with your software, Terry, but with the defragmenter
I use (Perfectdisk) it has to be set to run at the next boot in order
to defrag system files. Just running it twice in succession without a
reboot doesn't improve the first defrag.

 

[Gerry]

Terry

Certain activities require a pagefile on the volume where Windows
resides. An example is one is needed to capture the dump report when
system failure occurs. More in the link below.
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

Just set a Minimum and Maximum of 50 mb.


--


Hope this helps.

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

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Terry

Certain activities require a pagefile on the volume where Windows
resides. An example is one is needed to capture the dump report when
system failure occurs. More in the link below.
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

Just set a Minimum and Maximum of 50 mb.

OK, thanks Gerry, duly done.

 

[Richard]

Subject: Is this fragmentation picture OK?

I defragment daily with Diskeeper. After the last run, as usual, it
reports virtually zero fragmentation. But I don't understand why it
looks such a mess?

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s247/terrypin999/Diskeeper-1.jpg

For example,
1. Why is the 'Contiguous file' space broken up so much?
2. Why are the system files scattered around instead of all being
together?
3. Why are some directories in the lower par and near the end?

Hi Terry, The picture looks typical. The islands of system files and "blue"
contiguous files are usually because the sectors were marked as "in use" and
defrag left them where they were. You might try starting in Windows Safe
Mode and use Windows defrag to move at least some of the islands back to the
main land. The blue islands are apparently all part of the same file, so
they should be consecutive sectors that probably read fast where they are.
My guess why there are directories near the end is that when they were
created, there were a lot of temporary files filling what now is empty space
between.

The main purpose of defragging your drive is to re-arrange fragmented files
in consecutive sectors so they can be READ faster. Fragmented files that are
sitting in folders not being accessed don't matter. The total number of
files taking up space on your drive does not matter much, as long as you
have free space for new additions. It takes longer for your drive to write,
than to read, since it also has to verify that what it wrote is actually
there. Write operations are generally faster when the free space sectors are
consecutive, but as far back as the Windows 95 defrag, which had a graphics
display of each sector, I noticed that the files had been written to every
other sector, skipping every other free sector. The defrag moved those
"every other sector" pieces and put them elsewhere one after another. If any
of those files were ever accessed again by any program, then they were
probably accessed a little faster. I've never noticed any faster disk access
time after defrag. I have noticed slower disk access time when more than one
program is doing a lot of reads or writes. Defragmenting more than once a
week seems to me like excessive wear and tear on the drive for what little
it accomplishes.

FWIW. --Richard

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Subject: Is this fragmentation picture OK?



Hi Terry, The picture looks typical. The islands of system files and "blue"
contiguous files are usually because the sectors were marked as "in use" and
defrag left them where they were. You might try starting in Windows Safe
Mode and use Windows defrag to move at least some of the islands back to the
main land. The blue islands are apparently all part of the same file, so
they should be consecutive sectors that probably read fast where they are.
My guess why there are directories near the end is that when they were
created, there were a lot of temporary files filling what now is empty space
between.

The main purpose of defragging your drive is to re-arrange fragmented files
in consecutive sectors so they can be READ faster. Fragmented files that are
sitting in folders not being accessed don't matter. The total number of
files taking up space on your drive does not matter much, as long as you
have free space for new additions. It takes longer for your drive to write,
than to read, since it also has to verify that what it wrote is actually
there. Write operations are generally faster when the free space sectors are
consecutive, but as far back as the Windows 95 defrag, which had a graphics
display of each sector, I noticed that the files had been written to every
other sector, skipping every other free sector. The defrag moved those
"every other sector" pieces and put them elsewhere one after another. If any
of those files were ever accessed again by any program, then they were
probably accessed a little faster. I've never noticed any faster disk access
time after defrag. I have noticed slower disk access time when more than one
program is doing a lot of reads or writes. Defragmenting more than once a
week seems to me like excessive wear and tear on the drive for what little
it accomplishes.

FWIW. --Richard

Thanks Richard, appreciate that helpful reply. Lots to think about
there, but overall seems reassuring.

Nevertheless, I was getting some odd behaviour from my old Diskeeper
7, so I've just bought PerfectDisk 10 to replace it. The picture from
the first defrag looks a lot tidier.