Search Results

Search found 65 results on 3 pages for 'defragment'.

Page 1/3 | 1 2 3  | Next Page >

  • Defragment a file or folder? Windows 7

    - by acidzombie24
    Is there a built-in way to defragment a folder? I am using VM Player so I would like my 3 GB disk image to be defragmented if possible. FYI my disk partition that the image lies in has 12 GB left and has roughly 90% of the disk used. I probably would not need a defrag but I would like to do it if it's possible.

    Read the article

  • How to actually defragment a JFFS2 filesystem

    - by Julie in Austin
    I have searched all over the Internet, including on a number of StackExchange forums, for a workable method for defragmenting a JFFS2 filesystem and cannot find an answer. The system in question has a 256MB NAND flash part. It is being accessed as a MTD device which is divided into three partitions. The third partition is where the root file system is being stored as a JFFS2 file system. The issue is that writes to the root file system have non-deterministic performance due to the usual issues of the JFFS2 garbage collector deciding to run at the worst possible times. When that happens, the product is hung for some unknown length of time while the garbage collector (and pdflush) run. Changing the file system isn't an option. The solution needs to be something that can run during off-hours that after having been run results in more predictable write performance. Right now I am working on a program that will attempt to force the garbage collector to run, then delete the file with the hope that all of the freed nodes are suddenly more readily available and make writes perform better. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Defragment an Exchange Volume

    - by IceMage
    The Scenario: I use a dedicated volume (RAID volume) to store all of my data for my Exchange 2007 server. Today, out of curiosity, I decided to check up on how fragmented the files on this data volume were. To my surprise, the answer is extremely. So, a three part question: First and Foremost, SHOULD I defragment this volume (after a full backup of course)? Be specific as to why not if I should not, or reasons I absolutely should if I should. Second, about how much time should I allow for during this maintenance period per gigabyte. The drives are all 7200 RPM SATA drives on a Hardware RAID 5 controller (Perc 5i/6i, can't remember), the files are extremely fragmented. (Over 5000 file fragments per gigabyte). Third, is there something wrong here? It seems to me like the drive shouldn't be this fragmented. Could something be configured incorrectly that could be causing this to happen?

    Read the article

  • Defragment / Performance Monitor without Task Scheduler

    - by mjaggard
    My organisation has a policy of disabling Task Scheduler on all servers and workstations (don't ask, I tried once to wrestle the pig). I need to collect performance stats using Data Collector Sets in Windows 7 or Windows 2008 but the Performance Monitor interface requires Task Scheduler to be running. Is this possible because I'm not trying to schedule anything (except the collection of WMI information every 15 seconds but I doubt it hands that task off to the task scheduler)? Is there any way to trick it into thinking Task Scheduler is running? If not, is there any way to temporarily override the group policy to allow Task Scheduler to run? I've found that most group policy can be overridden in this way by an Administrator by editing the registry. On exactly the same vein, I want to defragment a hard disk on one of my workstations, but I can't get it to start because of the dependancy on Task Scheduler - is it possible to overcome this?

    Read the article

  • Does btrfs balance also defragment files?

    - by pauldoo
    When I run btrfs filesystem balance, does this implicitly defragment files? I could imagine that balance simply reallocates each file extent separately, preserving the existing fragmentation. There is an FAQ entry, 'What does "balance" do?', which is unclear on this point: btrfs filesystem balance is an operation which simply takes all of the data and metadata on the filesystem, and re-writes it in a different place on the disks, passing it through the allocator algorithm on the way. It was originally designed for multi-device filesystems, to spread data more evenly across the devices (i.e. to "balance" their usage). This is particularly useful when adding new devices to a nearly-full filesystem. Due to the way that balance works, it also has some useful side-effects: If there is a lot of allocated but unused data or metadata chunks, a balance may reclaim some of that allocated space. This is the main reason for running a balance on a single-device filesystem. On a filesystem with damaged replication (e.g. a RAID-1 FS with a dead and removed disk), it will force the FS to rebuild the missing copy of the data on one of the currently active devices, restoring the RAID-1 capability of the filesystem.

    Read the article

  • impossible to defragment and resize a partition

    - by chino99
    I'm trying to shrink the main partition on my new pc with Windows Seven 64 bits preloaded from 500Gb to 100Gb. Unfortunately, some files prevent any attempt to go below 290Gb. See screnshot: http://i40.tinypic.com/14eccp3.jpg I have already disabled restore points, as somebody had suggested, but nothing changes. What have I to do to further shrink this partition?

    Read the article

  • The 35 Best Tips and Tricks for Maintaining Your Windows PC

    - by Lori Kaufman
    When working (or playing) on your computer, you probably don’t think much about how you are going to clean up your files, backup your data, keep your system virus free, etc. However, these are tasks that need attention. We’ve published useful article about different aspects of maintaining your computer. Below is a list our most useful articles about maintaining your computer, operating system, software, and data. HTG Explains: Learn How Websites Are Tracking You Online Here’s How to Download Windows 8 Release Preview Right Now HTG Explains: Why Linux Doesn’t Need Defragmenting

    Read the article

  • Wiping Deleted Directory Entries and Defragmenting Directories

    - by Synetech inc.
    Hi, I have seen plenty of apps that wipe free space on a disk (usually by creating a file that is as big as the remaining space) or defragment a file (usually by using the MoveFile API to copy it to a new contiguous area). What I have not seen however is a program that wipes the deleted directory entries. That is, when a file is deleted, its information (name, dates, etc.) remain in the directory, but are simply marked as empty. That leaves all kinds of information in a directory entry, and also wastes space since (at least on FAT drives), the directory may be using several clusters. For example, if a directory once had a lot of files, it will be expanded to use another cluster which could be anywhere on the disk. This means that the directory is fragmented, and may be using more clusters than needed, possibly with 100’s of unused (ie, “deleted file”) entries between active files. Does anyone know of a program that can defragment/consolidate directories (ie, wipe unused entries, and move active entries together)? (I would really rather not have to resort to writing my own yet again.) Thanks a lot. EDIT Sorry, I should have said, Windows and/or DOS, for FAT*/NTFS.

    Read the article

  • How to "defragment" MongoDB index effectively in production?

    - by dfrankow
    I've been looking at MongoDB. Feels good. I added some indexes to a collection, uploaded a bunch of data, then removed all the data, and I noticed the indexes did not change size, similar to the behavior reported here. If I call db.repairDatabase() the indexes are then squashed to near-zero. Similarly if I don't remove all the data, but call repairDatabase(), the indexes are squashed somewhat (perhaps because unused extends are truncated?). I am getting index size from "totalIndexSize" of db.collection.stats(). However, that takes a long time (I've read it could be hours on a large database). It's unclear to me how available the database is for reads or writes while it is running. I am guessing not so available. Since I want to run as few instances of mongod as possible, I want to understand more about how indexes are managed after deletes. Can anyone point me to anything or give any advice?

    Read the article

  • Boot Camp fails to create a Windows partition because it can't move files

    - by Jens Bannmann
    I'm running Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) on a mac with a 320 GB drive, 167GB free space, and I can't get Boot Camp running. The wizard starts creating the Windows partition, but fails with a message claiming it cannot move some files. The message suggests to back up my hard disk, reformat it, restore my files, and re-run Boot Camp wizard. The problem is: Though I do have backups (Time Machine), I don't feel like formatting my hard disk right now :-) I found a thread in some forum discussing this problem. The suggestion was to defragment my volume with iDefrag, and lots of people claimed that solved the issue. So I went ahead and got iDefrag 1.7.1, created a bootable DVD and chose the "compact" setting recommended before partitioning - but still no luck with Boot Camp! So how do I get this working? Fun note: last year, I briefly set up Boot Camp with 10.5, and it worked perfectly. Probably I did not use that much hard disk space back then...

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 inbuilt and 3rd party (de)fragmentation related queries

    - by Karan
    I have a pretty good idea of how files end up getting fragmented. That said, I just copied ~3,200 files of varying sizes (from a few KB to ~20GB) from an external USB HDD to an internal, freshly formatted (under Windows 7 x64), NTFS, 2TB, 5400RPM, WD, SATA, non-system (i.e. secondary) drive, filling it up 57%. Since it should have been very much possible for each file to have been stored in one contiguous block, I expected the drive to be fragmented not more than 1-2% at most after this rather lengthy exercise (unfortunately this older machine doesn't support USB 3.0). Windows 7's inbuilt defrag utility told me after a quick analysis that the drive was fragmented only 1% or so, which dovetailed neatly with my expectations. However, just out of curiosity I downloaded and ran the latest portable x64 version of Piriform's Defraggler, and was shocked to see the drive being reported as being ~85% fragmented! The portable version of Auslogics Disk Defrag also agreed with Defraggler, and both clearly expected to grind away for ~10 hours to completely defragment the drive. 1) How in blazes could the inbuilt and 3rd party defrag utils disagree so badly? I mean, 10-20% variance is probably understandable, but 1% and 85% are miles apart! This Engineering Windows 7 blog post states: In Windows XP, any file that is split into more than one piece is considered fragmented. Not so in Windows Vista if the fragments are large enough – the defragmentation algorithm was changed (from Windows XP) to ignore pieces of a file that are larger than 64MB. As a result, defrag in XP and defrag in Vista will report different amounts of fragmentation on a volume. ... [Please read the entire post so the quote is not taken out of context.] Could it simply be that the 3rd party defrag utils ignore this post-XP change and continue to use analysis algos similar to those XP used? 2) Assuming that the 3rd party utils aren't lying about the real extent of fragmentation (which Windows is downplaying post-XP), how could the files have even got fragmented so badly given they were just copied over afresh to an empty drive? 3) If vastly differing analysis algos explain the yawning gap, which do I believe? I'm no defrag fanatic for sure, but 85% is enough to make me seriously consider spending 10 hours defragging this drive. On the other hand, 1% reported by Windows' own defragger clearly implies that there is no cause for concern and defragging would actually have negative consequences (as per the post). Is Windows' assumption valid and should I just let it be, or will there be any noticeable performance gains after running one of the 3rd party utils for 10 hours straight? 4) I see that out of the box Windows 7 defrag is scheduled to run weekly. Does anyone know whether it defrags every single time, or only if its analysis reveals a fragmentation percentage over a set threshold? If the latter, what is this threshold and can it be changed, maybe via a Registry edit? Thanks for reading through (my first query on this wonderful site!) and for any helpful replies. Also, if you're answering question #3, please keep in mind that any speed increases post defragging with 3rd party utils vis-à-vis Windows' inbuilt program should not include pre-Vista (preferably pre-Win7) examples. Further, examples of programs that made your system boot faster won't help in this case, since this is a non-system drive (although one that'll still be used daily).

    Read the article

  • Windows XP scheduled tasks and defragmenting?

    - by Gathris
    I am trying to set a seduled task to defrag my HDD on a regular basis and following the guide on http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/tips/gehrke1.mspx. It does not work. That process only brings a DOS window which does nothing (well it displays some text about the Microsoft defragging program). I tried using the "%SystemRoot%\system32\dfrg.msc C:" as the command path that is in the start menu but that brings up the program to start a defrag job and doesn't start automatically. What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • MacBook Air 2010 Not letting me use Boot Camp

    - by SeniorShizzle
    Hi, I'm trying to install Windows 7 on my MBA, 2010. I open up Boot Camp and attempt to use it, but after the first screen it comes up with an error saying it can't install unless theirs 10GB of free disk space. Right now my hdd has 21.5 GB free. Disk Utility won't let me partition my drive either, so a manual install is out of the question. I need help! My original thoughts were that my disk needed to be defraged to get 10GB of contiguous space. Is this a possibility? This is kind of pissing me off because I really need to get Windows up on this Mac (as much as it dreads me to do it). Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Best defragmentation software?

    - by dentrasi
    I'm currently running Defraggler on my system, as it's fast, seems to be effective, and has a nice clean interface; it's also the program the other techs recommend to me. I've also heard good things about JKDefrag. Which program do you find you get the best results with?

    Read the article

  • Extra Volumes appearing after using MyDefrag

    - by user17381
    Hi, After using MyDefrag, when I start the defrag again, two new drives have appeared - with very odd names. They are both named the same thing: \\?\Volume{WhatLooksLikeAGUID} Note the Guid (and hence the drive names) are both the same - any idea whats going on here? Thanks. OS: Windows XP Pro SP2.

    Read the article

  • What are "Excess Fragments" in defragmenting a hard drive?

    - by Andrew Swift
    I'm defragmenting my hard drive (XP SP3) with PerfectDisk 7.0, and it finds 816,659 excess fragments when I ask for an analysis. [update] Specifically, it shows that the 1TB disk is 14% fragmented with 19693 fragments and 816,659 excess fragments. About 20% of the disk is still free space. What does excess fragments refer to? What is the difference between fragments and excess fragments? I have had problems in the past where I defragmented a fragmented disk and many files were corrupted. It seemed as though "excess fragments" referred to orphan pieces, where the program couldn't find out where to put them. If that was true, then defragmenting a disk resulted in many incomplete files, and in fact I defragmented a disk full of MP3's and got a lot of corrupted files as a result. Instead, I started to simply format a separate disk and copy everything from one to the other. That way there were no orphan bits, and no file corruption. Does anybody know what "excess fragments" really are?

    Read the article

  • is it worth defragging an iPod

    - by alimack
    Essentially my 5G iPod was cutting tracks off and generally misbehaving. So I did the following: 1) Use Diskwarrior - heavy directory fragmentation which it fixed; 2) Use iDefrag - some fragmentation but it kept halting as it couldn't move files; 3) Try to write out drive with Disk Utility - got a warning from DU so gave up before I started; 4) Completely restored using iTunes; 5) Reran Diskwarrior - still heavy directory fragmentation; 6) Reran iDefrag, still fragmentation although limited to two bands; The iPod is much quicker to traverse menus and no more track skipping. My question is this - is defragging worth it or does the heat generated by the process kill the drive and make it a self-defeating process. Anyone have any metrics/ figures? Clearly it's a bad idea for solid state drives like the nano & touch.

    Read the article

  • Hard Disk Space Changes

    - by Write.
    I am currently running on Windows 7 x64, and have observe that my hard disk space is acting a little weird. Currently, my harddisk has 3 partitions, C:, D:, E:. Previously, before I delete a huge folder (30gb of data) from my D: drive, my C: drive has about 1gb left, while my E: drive has about 5 gb left. After deleting the 30gb of data (from D: drive), my space in D: drive has been recovered (but not sure if it's fully recovered), my C: drive which only had about 1gb left increased to 3. While my E: drive which had 5gb left dropped to 1. I was wondering if it has something to do with the fragmentations and whatsoever I always hear about in harddisk. Has anyone encountered similar issues or have an explanation to why it could be happening?

    Read the article

  • Not able to Defrag my drive for shrink even using PerfectDisk on Windows 7

    - by Mithun Sasidharan
    I want to partition my c drive which has over 450gb capacity of which hardly 30gb is being used. I deleted the pagefile.sys and also disabled hibernate and cache memory. I then defragmented and consolidated free space using PerfectDisk 12 and also run a boot time defragmented. Now what remains is Metadata files that preventing me from shrinking the volume beyond half the size if disk. Please tell me what to do?????

    Read the article

  • what damage can be caused if scandisk is not run before defrag

    - by Justin Gregoire
    Hello, I would like to know what the damage to a drive can be if a scandisk is not performed before a disk defrag. I have looked up some sites that say a scandisk should be run to correct any issues that may be apparent on the system, making sure that the drive is free of errors before a disk defrag is done. I have to perform a defrag on a computer without having physical access to it (using remote connection). I know that the scandisk requires a reboot to the system (causing me to lose my connection) which would be difficult to restart physically if the system does not come back on by itself once rebooted (this has happened before). Any suggestions? Thank you.

    Read the article

1 2 3  | Next Page >