Problem with Defragmentation

[Guest]

Hi, recently i having this problem..when i do a Defragmentation..but seem it
appear this message as below & i do a full recovery for my system. Anyone can
helps me to fix this problem? Please advice, thank you o much. This problem
still appear:

Defragmentation is complete for: (C

Some files on this volume could not be defragmented.
Please check the defragmentation report for the list of these files.

The report as below:

Volume (C
Volume size = 55.88 GB
Cluster size = 4 KB
Used space = 6.98 GB
Free space = 48.90 GB
Percent free space = 87 %

Volume fragmentation
Total fragmentation = 0 %
File fragmentation = 0 %
Free space fragmentation = 0 %

File fragmentation
Total files = 35,145
Average file size = 263 KB
Total fragmented files = 1
Total excess fragments = 112
Average fragments per file = 1.00

Pagefile fragmentation
Pagefile size = 720 MB
Total fragments = 1

Folder fragmentation
Total folders = 3,164
Fragmented folders = 1
Excess folder fragments = 0

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 38 MB
MFT record count = 38,443
Percent MFT in use = 99 %
Total MFT fragments = 2

 

[John Barnett MVP]

David, You are worrying un-necessarily. There are certain files that 'any'
defragmentation application cannot defragment while Windows is being used.
The page file is one and so to is the hibernation file. To defragment these
the operation need to be performed from the pre-start environment. In other
words when the PC first starts, but before Windows loads. Unfortunately, the
Windows defragmenter doesn't have this option, although there is a third
party application (I think its from sysinternals, but I don't have the
details to hand) that will defragment the page file.

If you need a defragmentation program that will defrag the page file and
hibernation file you really need to go for something like PerfectDisk (but
this is not a free application). You should also be aware that
defragmentation application can't defrag encrypted files.

Unfortunately, where Windows defragmenter is concerned it is a case of 'too
much information' which puts the fear of God up people. Windows Vista, on
the other hand, doesn't give a report, it simply, automatically, defragments
the drive on a set schedule. The only way you will see a report 'of sorts'
in Vista is if you defragment via the command prompt.

Stop looking at the report defragmenter gives you as a possible Armageddon,
it isn't. Your system is working fine and you certainly don't have to keep
re-imaging the drive because you think their is a problem, because there
isn't!

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows - Shell/User

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Hi, recently i having this problem.

What problem? Do you mean the message "Some files on this volume could
not be defragmented"? If so, that's perfectly normal, and nothing to
worry about. The report below looks fine.

 

[Gerry]

David

The Defragmentation Report does not indicate a fragmentation problem.

How much RAM memory do have? Is your computer running slowly?

--



Hope this helps.

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

 

[Gerry]

John

"Unfortunately, where Windows defragmenter is concerned it is a case of
'too
much information' which puts the fear of God up people. Windows Vista,
on
the other hand, doesn't give a report, it simply, automatically,
defragments
the drive on a set schedule. The only way you will see a report 'of
sorts'
in Vista is if you defragment via the command prompt."

Sorry John I think this paragraph is unhelpful. Users should be able to
get information from their computer and ask questions as to what it
means! Are you advocating a return to the time when only a few could
read and many of those that could used that knowledge to control those
that could not! Isn't one reason for these newsgroups to spread
knowledge and to help users understand their computers better? Most
knowledgeable contributors to these groups think the lack of information
provided by Disk Defragmenter in Vista is a backward move!

--
Regards.

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

 

[John Barnett MVP]

I'm sorry Gerry but the 'too much information' is information that the most
users don't understand anyway. What is the point of blinding someone with
science? - well other than to 'put the fear of God' into the user, tell
him/her they have a problem and then they'll rush of to the nearest PC
Repair shop gasping 'my computer's broke' as the repair guy rubs his hand
and his eyes flash £ or $ signs.

Maybe most knowledgeable users are of the opinion that the Vista
defragmenter is a backward step. Maybe I'm not 'knowledgeable' enough to
post to these newsgroups, but, to be honest Vista's defragmenter problem
doesn't bother me. My initial thought when I first ran Windows Defragmenter
on Vista was 'where's the GUI.' That was about the only disappointment I
felt towards Vista's defragmenter. As for defragmentation log files they
don't actually offer any useful information. Disk defragmenter tells you if
your drive needs defragmenting, it doesn't need to repeat the job by telling
you that it has defragmented some, but not all.

The newsgroups are here to allows users to understand the computers better.
I think the OP know his computer better now that he knows he shouldn't read
too much into the defragmentation log analysis files.

And where, may I ask, am I in the slightest 'advocating a return to the time
when only a few could read and many of those that could used that knowledge
to control those that could not!' I have given the OP my expert opinion of
his problem, what he does with that information is totally up to him!

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows - Shell/User

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..

 

[Jim]

Hi, recently i having this problem..when i do a Defragmentation..but seem
it
appear this message as below & i do a full recovery for my system. Anyone
can
helps me to fix this problem? Please advice, thank you o much. This
problem
still appear:

Defragmentation is complete for: (C

Some files on this volume could not be defragmented.
Please check the defragmentation report for the list of these files.

The report as below:

Volume (C
Volume size = 55.88 GB
Cluster size = 4 KB
Used space = 6.98 GB
Free space = 48.90 GB
Percent free space = 87 %

Volume fragmentation
Total fragmentation = 0 %
File fragmentation = 0 %
Free space fragmentation = 0 %

File fragmentation
Total files = 35,145
Average file size = 263 KB
Total fragmented files = 1
Total excess fragments = 112
Average fragments per file = 1.00

Pagefile fragmentation
Pagefile size = 720 MB
Total fragments = 1

Folder fragmentation
Total folders = 3,164
Fragmented folders = 1
Excess folder fragments = 0

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 38 MB
MFT record count = 38,443
Percent MFT in use = 99 %
Total MFT fragments = 2

You don't have a problem to worry about.
Jim

 

[Gerry]

I'm sorry Gerry but the 'too much information' is information that
the most users don't understand anyway. What is the point of blinding
someone with science? - well other than to 'put the fear of God' into
the user, tell him/her they have a problem and then they'll rush of
to the nearest PC Repair shop gasping 'my computer's broke' as the
repair guy rubs his hand and his eyes flash £ or $ signs.

Maybe most knowledgeable users are of the opinion that the Vista
defragmenter is a backward step. Maybe I'm not 'knowledgeable' enough
to post to these newsgroups, but, to be honest Vista's defragmenter
problem doesn't bother me. My initial thought when I first ran
Windows Defragmenter on Vista was 'where's the GUI.' That was about
the only disappointment I felt towards Vista's defragmenter. As for
defragmentation log files they don't actually offer any useful
information. Disk defragmenter tells you if your drive needs
defragmenting, it doesn't need to repeat the job by telling you that
it has defragmented some, but not all.
The newsgroups are here to allows users to understand the computers
better. I think the OP know his computer better now that he knows he
shouldn't read too much into the defragmentation log analysis files.

And where, may I ask, am I in the slightest 'advocating a return to
the time when only a few could read and many of those that could used
that knowledge to control those that could not!' I have given the OP
my expert opinion of his problem, what he does with that information
is totally up to him!

John

I have no problem with that. It was the unnecessary paragraph that I
felt was inappropriate. You can get a quite a bit from the Report if you
know what is relevant.


--
Regards.

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

 

[Lil' Dave]

Hi, recently i having this problem..when i do a Defragmentation..but seem
it
appear this message as below & i do a full recovery for my system. Anyone
can
helps me to fix this problem? Please advice, thank you o much. This
problem
still appear:

Defragmentation is complete for: (C

Some files on this volume could not be defragmented.
Please check the defragmentation report for the list of these files.

The report as below:

Volume (C
Volume size = 55.88 GB
Cluster size = 4 KB
Used space = 6.98 GB
Free space = 48.90 GB
Percent free space = 87 %

Volume fragmentation
Total fragmentation = 0 %
File fragmentation = 0 %
Free space fragmentation = 0 %

File fragmentation
Total files = 35,145
Average file size = 263 KB
Total fragmented files = 1
Total excess fragments = 112
Average fragments per file = 1.00

Pagefile fragmentation
Pagefile size = 720 MB
Total fragments = 1

Folder fragmentation
Total folders = 3,164
Fragmented folders = 1
Excess folder fragments = 0

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 38 MB
MFT record count = 38,443
Percent MFT in use = 99 %
Total MFT fragments = 2

Assuming you have adequate RAM, you can cause the PC to create an
unfragmented pagefile. This is the procedure I've used in the past in that
case:
1. Disable the pagefile
2. Reboot
3. Run defragmentor
4. Enable the pagefile
5. Reboot

The folder it mentions is probably "System Volume Information". Its for
system restore. It can be recreated, but, I wouldn't.
Dave

 

[Gerry]

Lil' Dave

The Report says the pagefile is not fragmented. However, your suggestion
would work for this user given that there is over 80% free space if the
pagefile was fragmented.. If it were only 40% free space the chances are
it would not.

--
Regards.

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

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Assuming you have adequate RAM, you can cause the PC to create an
unfragmented pagefile. This is the procedure I've used in the past in that
case:

Defragmenting the page file normally is a waste of time. Because
access to it is random anyway, a fragmented page file has practically
no performance penalty.

 

[Gerry]

Ken

If the pagefile is contiguous and it stays that way it results in less
fragmented free space. If the free space is less fragmented other files
do not fragment so quickly. I agree with you that defragmenting the
pagefile itself is not worthwhile for the reason you give. However,
creating a contiguous immovable pagefile is worthwhile? This is not easy
to achieve, save when the free space is over say 60%. It is best to
create a generous sized pagefile to ensure that it remains a single
immovable green blob in the middle of the drive / partition! This advice
applies where you have a single partition drive. Otherwise you can put
the pagefile in it's own partition.


--
Regards.

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

 

[Jim]

Ken

If the pagefile is contiguous and it stays that way it results in less
fragmented free space. If the free space is less fragmented other files do
not fragment so quickly. I agree with you that defragmenting the pagefile
itself is not worthwhile for the reason you give. However, creating a
contiguous immovable pagefile is worthwhile? This is not easy to achieve,
save when the free space is over say 60%. It is best to create a generous
sized pagefile to ensure that it remains a single immovable green blob in
the middle of the drive / partition! This advice applies where you have a
single partition drive. Otherwise you can put the pagefile in it's own
partition.

A pagefile that appears unfragmented to the program may still be internally
fragmented.
However, as Ken mentioned, Windows accesses a record by going to a
particular location in the file.
In such a file, external fragmentation has very very little effect.
Jim

 

[Gerry]

Jim

I do not disagree with you regarding fragmentation of the pagefile.
However, you are ignoring the point about a contiguous allocation of
disk space to the pagefile. If it is not contiguous it breaks up the
available free disk space, which in turn makes larger files fragment
more rapidly and into more fragments. An argument for partitioning is to
place files that get constantly rewritten in a separate partition from
archived data files e.g. your photo album. Archive partitions rarely
need defragmenting and removing those files from amongst active file
makes defragmenting active files quicker and easier.

--



Hope this helps.

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

 

[Jim]

Jim

I do not disagree with you regarding fragmentation of the pagefile.
However, you are ignoring the point about a contiguous allocation of disk
space to the pagefile. If it is not contiguous it breaks up the available
free disk space, which in turn makes larger files fragment more rapidly
and into more fragments. An argument for partitioning is to place files
that get constantly rewritten in a separate partition from archived data
files e.g. your photo album. Archive partitions rarely need defragmenting
and removing those files from amongst active file makes defragmenting
active files quicker and easier.

--



Hope this helps.

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

I think the real answer to all of these questions is "it all depends". It
is not difficult to setup
cases where defragmentation makes a lot of difference (i. e. reading a very
large sequential
file from beginning to end) as well as cases where it makes no difference
(i. e. reading any
kind of direct access file for a few records).

As for the burning issue of the day which is about the pagefile: The
pagefile on this computer
is 1.5 gb, it was delivered to me with this size, and it has not increased
since that time. I don't know
where it is placed (I'll bet I could find out if I really wanted to though).

However, the disk holds 60 GB. So, how could placement of such a relatively
small file make much of a
difference on a 60 GB disk? The largest files on my computers are usually
tiff, but they are only
30 mb maximum. However, these files do not reside on the system drive.

I would rather install more drives than try to determine what is the optimum
size of a partition (if
there is such a thing anyway_.
Jim

 

[Gerry]

Jim

The location of the pagefile in the graphical display in Disk
Defragmenter is fairly obvious in that it is coloured green. I am not
aware of much else of any size that is so coloured. A contiguous
pagefile plays only a very small part in the pursuit of optimum
performance. It is far more important when there is limited free space
than when there is plenty.

Not every one can afford to buy bigger better hard drives but I agree
that is another way to proceed. All I am advocating is make the most of
what you have.

I agree there is no optimum size for a partitions. If you have a third
party partitioning tool flexibility makes many things possible. You
have partitioned drives whereas my point about a contiguous pagefile
applies to a single partition drive, which somes users prefer. My drives
are partitioned and I have a strategy for partitioned drives.

--



Hope this helps.

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

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I think the real answer to all of these questions is "it all depends". It
is not difficult to setup
cases where defragmentation makes a lot of difference (i. e. reading a very
large sequential
file from beginning to end)

Yes, but that has nothing to do with defragmentation of the page file,
which is the issue under discussion here.

I didn't recommend against defragmentation in general, but only
pointed out that defragmentation of the page file didn't bring
substantial performance improvements.

 

[Gerry]

Ken

The discussion was not about defragmentation of the pagefile. It was
about allocating a contiguous portion of the disk to the pagefile so
that it did not fragment the free space more than necessary. In other
words the pagefile will appear as a solid green mass in the graphical
display not as two more green blocks!You do not seem to grasp the
difference between the two. You introduced the point of defragmentation
of the pagefile and we are of like minds on that.

--
Regards.

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

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken

The discussion was not about defragmentation of the pagefile. It was
about allocating a contiguous portion of the disk to the pagefile so
that it did not fragment the free space more than necessary.

Gerry, this is the statement to which I responded:

"Assuming you have adequate RAM, you can cause the PC to create an
unfragmented pagefile."

 

[Gerry]

Ken

That statement was not made by me. However, the statement has no bearing
on the distinction I have been trying to get you to admit exists. Namely
that maintaining a single block on the hard disk allocated to the
pagefile is not the same as defragmenting the pagefile. Once you achieve
the first you need do no more other than not change the pagefile
settings. If you chose to defragment the pagefile you would need to do
it continuously. We both agree this is pointless.


--
Regards.

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