Morning David, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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. Ho ho ho - I like it :o) I presume you are referring to the hardware - caught out by my inability to speak (type) English yet again ! I do know that if there is not at least 15% free space on the disc that defrag cannot do anything, however, I have vastly more than that available. The report from the analysis phase told me that it was (the data left I presume) 96% fragmented. > The sign of a single drive/volume PC, and too large for comfort. What do you expect - this is government work after all !!! The disc is a single 40 GB disc - actually, 40,000,000 bytes so not quite 40 GB, but then again, I'm not selling the discs am I? - partitioned as a single volume. That's the way they get supplied and we don't have time to go around reformatting things - can't waste the tax payers money on irrelevancies when we can waste it on other stuff - like the new and useless NHS project or Trident etc. > >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 ! That's my inability to type properly again. For 'extend' read 'extent' - sorry. > Literally the extent of a file must be it's entirety how ever many > chunks it may consist of. Maybe. I presume that in the English language, the full extent of a file is indeed the entire file. When talking technical terms, then the full extent can be made up of many (physica or logicall) extents scattered across the disc surface. This is true of floppy discs as well and the huge Oracle databases I work with on a daily basis. After all, if the file had no extents then we wouldn't ever need to defrag it. > I f a file is 3 or 4 pieces what %ages of fragmentation would be represented ? Depends doesn't it. If three pieces are together and one is elsewhere then it's 25% fragmented I presume. Of course, using that logic, if the file is scattered all over the place then it is 100% fragmented. Equally, when all its parts are together then it is not fragmented at all. > 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. Interesting. I have seen messages saying that directories are being defragmented when defragging a drive - but you might know something that I don't. If you scroll down in the analysis report you will find a section of directory fragmentation. > These days you will never know if QXL_WIN is in bits or where it is. Yes you can - sort of. Run an analysis and check the report. There is a list of the most fragmented files. Assuming it appears in that list then QXL.WIN will (a) be fragmented and (b) you will find out how badly. If it is not in the list then all you can say about it is that it is not one of the most fragmented files. As I said, 'sort of' ! > Back in days of DOS and W311 Central point had some great tools for > seeing exactly where files were located and if fractured. I'm sure under Win 3.1 the defrag tool had an 'advanced' option where a graphic (lots of squares) appeared. You could, if I remember, hover over a square and it would tell you the file and highlight all the other fragments of thet file too. Not any more. And finally, I remember when NTFS first came out we were all told that NTFS doesn't have a defragmenter tool because it in impossible for it to get fragmented. Oops ! Cheers, Norman. _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
