«

What's with the displays in the defrag utility that comes with W2K?

I have a disk here which is 8GB, free space is 1.6GB. The displays show
predominantly green (est about 50%) which are supposed to be system
files - I know W2K doesn't have that many. And free space is shown as a
very few white stripes, (est about 2%) where it should really show about
20%, surely?

Is the MFT supposed to be 99% used? What are the implications of this?
Will there be any impact on performance?

Also, I thought NTFS was supposed to be resistant to fragmentation, yet
this disk started with about 55% fragmentation. In actual, real world
use, does this really impact on performance?

-=rjh=- <> wrote in
news:4330778f$:

> What's with the displays in the defrag utility that comes with
> W2K?
>
> I have a disk here which is 8GB, free space is 1.6GB. The
> displays show predominantly green (est about 50%) which are
> supposed to be system files - I know W2K doesn't have that many.
> And free space is shown as a very few white stripes, (est about
> 2%) where it should really show about 20%, surely?

I've always assumed that means a combination of file types (colours),
but fragmented and so it has to choose a 'main' colour and that leads
to some colour being over represented.
(I also assumed that it chooses 'red' for fragmented if there is a
combination...)

For example, each stripe of colour might represent 40MB of disk
space, some of which is fragmented files, some contigious files, some
free space, some system files. It can only show one colour, so green
gets the nod (?). If what I've said is true, then 50% green
indicates VERY fragmented system files. What does the 'Report' say
about system file fragmentation and total size?

> Is the MFT supposed to be 99% used? What are the implications of
> this? Will there be any impact on performance?

Sounds too full up to me, but I don't know.

> Also, I thought NTFS was supposed to be resistant to
> fragmentation, yet this disk started with about 55%
> fragmentation. In actual, real world use, does this really
> impact on performance?

IIRC, it is somewhat resistant to fragmentation, as long as you
always have 10%+ free space.

Mark

-=rjh=- <> wrote in
news:4330778f$:

> What's with the displays in the defrag utility that comes with
> W2K?

Oh, and this (apparently) can defrag system files:
http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/PageDefrag.html

Mark C wrote:
> -=rjh=- <> wrote in
> news:4330778f$:
>
>
>>What's with the displays in the defrag utility that comes with
>>W2K?
>
>
> Oh, and this (apparently) can defrag system files:
> http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/PageDefrag.html

That's really helpful thanks - one of my other systems here is a laptop,
and (not that I can see how it matters, since it isn't used while
running the system normally) the hibernation file is very fragmented.

I'll give it a shot.

If you untick hybernation the hyber file is deleted. This may make it a lot
easier and faster to defrag the disc if the drive is small or the amount of
free space is minimal. To put the hyberfile back simply requires the reverse
procedure.

See Control Panel, Power, Hybernate, tick / untick Enable Hybernation and
apply as required.

- Tim

"-=rjh=-" <> wrote in message
news:4330f353$...
> Mark C wrote:
>> -=rjh=- <> wrote in
>> news:4330778f$:
>>>What's with the displays in the defrag utility that comes with
>>>W2K?
>>
>>
>> Oh, and this (apparently) can defrag system files:
>> http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/PageDefrag.html
>
> That's really helpful thanks - one of my other systems here is a laptop,
> and (not that I can see how it matters, since it isn't used while running
> the system normally) the hibernation file is very fragmented.
>
> I'll give it a shot.