At 08:24 23/04/2007, you wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Every time I use it I get the reassuring answer that the hard drive does > > not need a Defrag. > >I think it has to be *really really* bad before you get told to >defrag. I recently did lots of deletions and a general housekeep >here at work and decided to defrag - it say that the disc was >(somnething like) 96% fragmented but I didn't need to defrag. Go figure.
I can't - if the disc is fragmented it is broke, an ex-disc - deceased. If 96% of disc is fragmented files you cant defrag, which needs 15% free space to operate. >I ignored the advice and set a defrag in motion overnight. Next >morning, it was still running :o) The sign of a single drive/volume PC, and too large for comfort. > > As far as Windows is concerned it is just one large file, so it cannot > > itself be defragmented - which is what happens to the hard drive surface > > area having gaps between areas of occupied data and areas not occupied > > by data. >I beg to differ (if I may). It makes no difference how big the file >is (unless it is a single extent), it can be fragmented. A two >extent file can have one extend in location A and another in >location A+lots_of_displacement. That file is, technically, 50% >fragmented and can be defragged. What an unusual use of extent & extend ! Literally the extent of a file must be it's entirety how ever many chunks it may consist of. I f a file is 3 or 4 pieces what %ages of fragmentation would be represented ? > > The Defrag with DOS/Windows packs the data together, removing the > > fragments that got separated to be a whole continuous area of data. >This is correct. Or is it ? Defrag as done by Windows only attempts to stitch FILES back together, can still leave chunks of free space between data. No attempt to keep directories together. The quickest and most efficient defrag is to XCOPY all to another drive.volume - format - and copy all back again. > > Internally I don't know how the QXL.WIN holds its directions to > > information. Yet it will not be affected by defragmenting. >It can be. If the QXL.WIN file is spread of lots and lots of diosc >area, in multiple fragments, These days you will never know if QXL_WIN is in bits or where it is. You could ensure a contiguous file if you copied them into a virgin partition, you could create more than one, renaming them and keeping them in hand for later use. Back in days of DOS and W311 Central point had some great tools for seeing exactly where files were located and if fractured. As to whether or not QXL needs the treatment, less than likely, QDOS lacks the engine of fragmentation - an MS OS. So many files a silently extended, even in the root, and the whole system of temp files and swap/page file. But within QXL_WIN there comes a time when the space made available by deletion is not large enough to accommodate the next file to be saved there. Just do as Per suggested, WCOPY all to a new one, or a contiguous one you have been smart enough to prepare beforehand. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.9/773 - Release Date: 22/04/2007 20:18 _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
