Defragmented file

Although using it, it did nothing about my MFT fragments. Nice theory, but on my original Vista 32 filesystem which ran Vista since before SP1 is claimed to be , KB, and is in 1, fragments. It appears to be in on average KB pieces, no where near MB chunks which would indeed be very satisfactory, though there's only 4 regions containing it on the Drive Map and no obvious reason why it shouldn't be relatively contiguous. Yes, the Vista filesystem seems noticeably more sluggish for some things than the fresher Win 7 one, held on same disk.

Checking it via Highlighted Tab from Drive Map, and doing "Defrag Checked" does not successfully defrag the file though it does try it pops up "No files were defragmented". Running an FS check did find some unallocated blocks marked as allocated in bitmap and fixed those but no change to the situation.

Have downloaded Contig 1. This change to fixed amount versus a percentage was done to deal with increasing size of volumes and create better efficiencies. For workstation or server profiles that have large MFT? Are you saying that your fragments are dotted all over the place or are they within a mb zone, and if so are they contiguous?

I don't know whether an MFT expansion within the zone counts as another fragment. I think that if the MFT acts like any other file then it would count as additional fragments. Maybe you've had a lot of expansion? With that many fragments you will have many MFT extension records and possibly a non-resident attribute cluster as well. I would think that performance is dire. But guess what! Turn it OFF when you are not using it. Hi Leo Good article and mostly good posts.

But instead of putting my 2 cents worth in Europe now too!! I would like to ask one question which has intrigued me for some time now, as you have dealt more or less with this question before.

How can defragging, even once a week wear the HDD out more than the Head flying round like a maniac every time the computer is run. I like to chop videos up and splice parts together to see what I can make and that scatters parts of files all over. So I disabled it and installed Auslogics Disk Defrag, which does the same job that the Win 7 defragger does in about 3 minutes.

I provide tech support to a dozen families, and do the same on their computers. In short, I recommend against using the Win 7 defragger and instead using the Auslogics product, which is free. Wow, OK, defragging… I can finally explain it to easirer my family and freinds, Thanks again for the continuing pearls of wisdom Leo!!!

Every user will be different, and most users will differ from time to time. When using this I just click Analise first. If the figures are low I do not defrag and therefore reduce HDD wear and tear.

If the figures are high I do defrag and paradoxically also reduce HDD wear and tear. Whole thing just takes a little practice. When that done try out the advanced options. These to me speed up the comp. Luck All!!! Use auslogics on demand defragger, no schedules for me.

I never practiced the idea of leaving anything on when I am not using it and my hard drive is just fine for now. While theoretically it should be possible by shuffling individual sectors around, most tools require enough free space to contain at least the largest file being defragmented. Dom I believe when Leo said shuffling sectors around was referring to shuffling the contents of those sectors. Not an error, just another way of looking at it. If Windows 7 runs defragging automatically once a week, does that mean that if you buy a solid state hard drive you should turn the automatic defragmenting off, if you can?

But I cannot analyze it or defrag it. Is there a reason for that happening? Should I be able to defrag the C drive? And why does it keep increasing like that? However, when I click on the C Drive, even to analyze it, nothing at all happens.

The same for when I try to defrag it. And then the next time I look at that window, I see the percentage has usually risen by a couple points on the C drive. Should I be able to defrag the hard drive? I wonder about the process of disk fragmentation. I am constantly in need to defragment a disk. It seems a scam?

I defragmented my disk, did some work, and , files were immediately fragmented. How are files written? It seems that it is not done in any coherent, intelligent way. Is it a Windows problem? Do ext3 disks suffer this problem? Are files written to the first available space, regardless of how many pieces they will be in, or are they written to the largest free space that will contain them?

Do multi-core CPUs write multiple files at once, thus guaranteeing fragmentation? I use Adobe products, eg, Lightroom. It has many options and features which I consider as not necessary but still good to have since Windows OS has most of these options included also.

Arc GIS Desktop. If appropriate to the file handling option chosen, the original file has its extension changed to. If appropriate, the defragmented file is renamed using the original file name. If appropriate, the original file is deleted. Now, say, you have modified one of the copies of the large file file2.

The modification needs to change 10 of the extents. The Btrfs filesystem will copy the required 10 extents in another unused location say, e — e of the filesystem and change them there. Once the changes are written to the disk, the Btrfs filesystem will re-link the extents so that the changes are reflected in the large file.

The process is illustrated in the figure below:. Figure 2: 10 extents are changed in file2. So, the extents are re-linked in the Btrfs filesystem. Now that you know how the Copy-on-Write CoW feature of the Btrfs filesystem works, you will understand the problems with defragmenting a Btrfs filesystem.