-
January 23rd, 2006, 08:04 PM
#1
Registered User
Defrag question?
I ran defrag on my system yesterday and it had a file that it could not defrag.
_________________
Volume (C
Volume size = 37.26 GB
Cluster size = 4 KB
Used space = 27.32 GB
Free space = 9.94 GB
Percent free space = 26 %
Volume fragmentation
Total fragmentation = 4 %
File fragmentation = 9 %
Free space fragmentation = 0 %
File fragmentation
Total files = 81,065
Average file size = 420 KB
Total fragmented files = 3
Total excess fragments = 3,909
Average fragments per file = 1.04
Pagefile fragmentation
Pagefile size = 384 MB
Total fragments = 1
Folder fragmentation
Total folders = 3,939
Fragmented folders = 1
Excess folder fragments = 0
Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 179 MB
MFT record count = 85,311
Percent MFT in use = 46 %
Total MFT fragments = 195
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fragments File Size Files that cannot be defragmented
3,904 656 MB \Documents and Settings\Me 1\Local Settings\Application Data\Identities\{46F15E46-FD82-47CD-85AB-D07A817830CE}\Microsoft\Outlook Express\Sent Items.dbx
____________________________________
That file not being able to be defraged seems strange to me...
And does the rest of that look normal??
-
January 24th, 2006, 05:18 AM
#2
Geezer
-
January 24th, 2006, 05:46 AM
#3
Intel Mod
Yeow. Yes, that is a very heavily fragmented MFT. Was the drive converted from FAT32? That's a common cause for a fragmented MFT, which is going to cause loss of performance as the drive hunts all over the place as files are read & written to. DiskKeeper is another utility that can defrag the MFT (it's the "full-blown" relative of the XP "minimalist" Defrag...)
The file that didn't defrag is not necessarily a problem in itself, there are some possibilities like trying a defrag in Safe Mode, or seeing what a better defrag does with it. It's not causing other problems, mainly that free space is not fragmented, so the file's components are nestled in with other files, not stuck out in empty space getting in the way of the paging file or something else important.
However, if its size is reported correctly, it's much too large! An Outlook Express .DBX file nearly 4GB in size is well above OE's handling capacity (2GB), and if not already corrupted, must be in danger of being corrupted. Do you really have that much stored in your Sent Items?
-
January 24th, 2006, 06:02 AM
#4
Registered User
If I'm reading that right it says
Fragments 3,904
File Size 656MB ?
or is it 3,904 656MB?
either of them are quite large for a .DBX file. Thats a lot of mail
-
January 24th, 2006, 06:21 AM
#5
Geezer
Originally Posted by TechZ
3,904 656MB?
It means 4 gig fella .. but I dunno what you & platypus are getting hung up on, 'sent items.dbx' is often way bigger than 2gb, & that's an arbitary 'rule of thumb' about size, not a hard & fast limit, if anything is gonna stuff an inbox, or outbox for OE, its the number of messages (transactions) that its had to deal with, not the size..
My current 'sent items.dbx' is 20gb ! as I just mailed off about six mails with big fat attachments & full of images & that's alright
-
January 24th, 2006, 06:37 AM
#6
Intel Mod
Hmm, this is the sort of info I was referring to:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/903095/en-us
"The maximum file size of the .dbx files that are used by Outlook Express is 2 gigabytes (GB)."
I guess there can be a reason for this not to apply.
I see what Techz means - column headings "Fragments" "File Size" get 3,904 then 656 MB respectively. This is probably what it is meant to say. There is no comma after the 904.
-
January 24th, 2006, 08:27 AM
#7
Registered User
Originally Posted by Platypus
Hmm, this is the sort of info I was referring to:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/903095/en-us
"The maximum file size of the .dbx files that are used by Outlook Express is 2 gigabytes (GB)."
I guess there can be a reason for this not to apply.
I see what Techz means - column headings "Fragments" "File Size" get 3,904 then 656 MB respectively. This is probably what it is meant to say. There is no comma after the 904.
exactly
Last edited by TechZ; January 24th, 2006 at 08:30 AM.
-
January 24th, 2006, 08:51 AM
#8
Geezer
-
January 24th, 2006, 08:57 AM
#9
Intel Mod
Yes, 3,904 fragments - I think defrag just decided not to bother with that one...
-
January 24th, 2006, 11:07 AM
#10
Registered User
http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/PageDefrag.html
This defrags the Pagefile, etc. Doesn't include the MFT though I don't think.
emr
-
January 25th, 2006, 02:13 AM
#11
Registered User
Thanks folks..
You're right it was 3,904 fragments.
I did get it to defrag.
I deleted a bunch of the sent items, and compacted the folder. Then ran defrag again. It got it.
I guess it did defrag the MFT too.
Check it out now:
-----
Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 179 MB
MFT record count = 86,510
Percent MFT in use = 47 %
Total MFT fragments = 3
_________________
I remember the day when M$ didn't have a defragger. I used norton way back when. I may look into a disk utilities package for xp.
Last edited by Deadeye901; January 25th, 2006 at 02:18 AM.
-
January 25th, 2006, 07:55 AM
#12
Registered User
Originally Posted by Deadeye901
...I may look into a disk utilities package for xp.
If you do - consider this
http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdisk2k/
I ran it from My BARTPE and have very good results
Real stupidity beats Artifical Intelligence
Avatar courtesy of A D E P T
Similar Threads
-
By 70-240 in forum Certification
Replies: 14
Last Post: February 20th, 2012, 03:35 AM
-
By asm481 in forum Windows NT/2000
Replies: 3
Last Post: January 4th, 2004, 09:33 AM
-
By Farrar in forum Windows XP
Replies: 9
Last Post: August 12th, 2003, 07:05 PM
-
By GregL in forum Windows 95/98/98SE/ME
Replies: 4
Last Post: July 18th, 2001, 09:35 PM
-
By shamus in forum Windows 95/98/98SE/ME
Replies: 5
Last Post: April 11th, 2001, 10:43 PM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks