Windows XPPost your Windows XP related questions here.
Mission Statement
WindowsBBS is an online community dedicated to easily accessible technical support for those using Microsoft operating systems and other Windows software.
Our goal is to become the leading resource for computer users that require assistance with their day-to-day computer usage, including full support for networking PC's, virus & malware removal, system upgrades and general support questions.
Did a defrag analysis of the drive. Never saw files solid red like that. I have been advised not to defrag them because it may cause corruption of the image files.
Volume ME DRIVE (H
Volume size = 18.65 GB
Cluster size = 4 KB
Used space = 5.05 GB
Free space = 13.59 GB
Percent free space = 72 %
Volume fragmentation
Total fragmentation = 42 %
File fragmentation = 85 %
Free space fragmentation = 0 %
File fragmentation
Total files = 8,553
Average file size = 765 KB
Total fragmented files = 2
Total excess fragments = 96
Average fragments per file = 1.01
7 fragments on a 2 gig file is pretty good. 91 isnt unreasonable. Whats the concern here? If you defragged the drive before you made the files, you'd experience a lot less fragments.
Charles,
I know that when I tried defragin my backup image files, on a 2nd partition, they did get corrupted and were trashed. Not a big deal since I just made new ones but if you want to keep the ones you have I would suggest you don't defrag them.
What image program are you using?
The only way I've been able to verify my image files is with the option that comes with most image programs to test the image after you create it.
I don't use windows defragger but Diskeeper does show the image files as different than normal or compressed files.
Hi Charles,
I notice that You are an infidel ...... ...... using Acronis True Image ...... ...... !
I don't know how ATI writes images but I don't think it will produce fragmented files, unless it has a reason (other files or file fragments getting in the way).
About defragmentation prior to creating the image(s), well, that makes a difference but only the first time if You follow my advice to not defragment images. The solution for minimizing fragmentation is a drive/partition dedicated to images and nothing else.
Using Ghost on a freshly formated NTFS drive/partition, it produces unfragmented files and fragmented files as I outlined in this post. I have not removed an image file from that drive (yet) but when I do, Ghost will start producing fragmented files because the new file will not fit exactly in the freed space. The image files will be in a few fragments but not close to a hundred fragments.
Using Ghost on a freshly formated FAT32 drive/partition is worse. When creating an image, split in 4 files, Ghost will leave slack space between the files. Subsequent images that are created, will be written in the slack space of the preceeding image, resulting in the first file of the split image being in four fragments (3 slack spaces + the rest).
That is very annoying and I tried a different approach by creating the images to a different drive/partition and then I copied to the desired storage drive/partition. That trick produced unfragmented files without defragmenting. I did an integrity check of the copy prior to deleting the original.
This should be regarded as experimenting because I agree with JoeHobart that a large file in a few fragments is not a big deal and it looks worse than it is (a file in 4 fragments looks a red as a file in 100 fragments).
A lot of mumbo-jumbo but the bottom line is don't mix images and other stuff on the same drive/partition.
Christer
Edited:
"Using Ghost on a freshly formated ..." refers to the target partition, not the source partition.
Last edited by Christer; 9th January 2005 at 18:06.
I notice that You are an infidel ...... ...... using Acronis True Image ...... ...... !
It's not Acronis... It's Apricorn EZ Gig II that came bundled with the external drive cage.
A lot of mumbo-jumbo but the bottom line is don't mix images and other stuff on the same drive/partition.
Why not? The reason for my posting is first, curiousity, never saw fragmentation like this, and second, new to imaging. Will defrag the drive prior to creating the images the next time.
Also keep in mind, if its pertinent, that if and when I resotore an image, it will be by using the other OS to do it.
It's not Acronis... It's Apricorn EZ Gig II that came bundled with the external drive cage.
I did a search for "tib" at FilExt and it returned Acronis. I'll go Google on "Apricorn" to see what You've got. Never heard of it.
Quote:
Why not?
It was one of the first things I learned about images, keep them separated on a dedicated partition. I have adhered to that recommendation and have never seen the fragmentation levels that You do.
Forgot to tell you that right after formating that drive, the very first thing I did was to create image files on that drive w/o anything else on it. It showed up the same way. After that I proceded to put on other normal backups.
So by that evidence, I conclude that is the way .tib files show up.
The fact that You created the images immediately after formating the partition and the fact that the images get fragmented is a mystery to me.
On my 18 GB E-drive, the beginning of the MFT-zone is located at 2.5-3.0 GB and an image, corresponding to Your largest (not split as I create them), would probably be in a single fragment, maybe two fragments.
Yesterday, I ran out of space on my G-drive, ~30 GB dedicated to images. It was interesting to see how Ghost handled the situation regarding the reserved MFT-zone.
The MFT-zone starts some 2.5-3 GB into the drive. The MFT-zone is by default 12.5 % of drive space, 3.75 GB in this case.
The unused part of the MFT-zone is included in free space. In this case only 111 kB of the MFT-zone is used.
What happened was that Ghost wrote image files to the end of the drive, then claimed approximately ½ of the MFT-zone (the rearmost part of it) and continued writing there.
Before I create the next image, I will have to delete a few obsolete ones to make space for it and a few subsequent ones. I wonder if Windows will reclaim the lost ½ of the MFT-zone (rhetorical)?
Before I create the next image, I will have to delete a few obsolete ones to make space for it and a few subsequent ones. I wonder if Windows will reclaim the lost ½ of the MFT-zone (rhetorical)?
The time for that came today and I deleted all "snapshot" images created after the initial installation of the system and YES, Windows did reclaim the lost part of the MFT-zone. No fragmentation of the new image!
Attaching screen shot of Drive Image 7 Backups on my "F" drive. This drive holds the images as well as some other direct backups of Docs and Pix.
These DI7 backups are scheduled unattended, and there are three there made on different dates.
Does not matter with this program whether newly formatted drive or not, images are always fragmented like this. When I first started using the program I would defragment the drive, but each subsequent backup would look the same. I quit defragmenting them.
I have done a number of image restores using the fragmented images, no problem. Not only that, but if the "C" drive is de-fragmented before imaging, and that image is restored from the fragmented image, the restored drive is not fragmented. Go figure.
It seems like Ghost isn't as bad, regarding fragmentation of image files, as I thought it was. Ghost actually seems to be the better one.
Ghost skips a number of files that are "one session files", such as pagefile.sys and hiberfil.sys. It only "notes" the size of these files to be able to recreate them blank. I don't know if the below is a positive side effect of this but creating and restoring a Ghost Image is a simple way to defragment the pagefile.
I was working on a computer with low RAM (192 MB shared with video) and decided to double the size of the pagefile to avoid the constant resizing.
After doubling the size I defragmented, created and restored an image. Screenshot #1 is after doubling and defragmenting, #2 is after creating-restoring the image.
The pagefile is yellow and it not only gets in one contiguous chunk but is also relocated to a faster part of the harddisk/partition.
Christer
Last edited by Christer; 21st February 2005 at 09:41.
Hey Christer: I always thought the swap file was the green part of the image?
Anyhow, I just never defrag the dedicated backup drive. Very time consuming, only lasts till the next image. Since it works flawlessly, saved my butt on a number of occasions, I don't see any sense in messing with it.
Just for the heck of it, I ran Norton's Speed Disc on my "C" drive, then checked in Windows Management Console, defrag, it showed a whole bunch of fragments that weren't there before. I seem to remember a discussion on this some time ago, conclusion was: "conflict" don't use it. So I got to run Windows Defrag now.
Can't seem to help myself, got to stop messing with this machine, if it ain't broke, fix it anyhow.
Martin, if you do anything at all to the backup drive it should be to verify a few or maybe all of the images by running the verify tool on them.
I do that once in a while and have never found anything wrong so it makes me feel better. Kinda like a warm cup of tea. Or a couple of frozen marguritas.
Hi Dude: In DI7, verify image is part of the optional settings. Each image is verified after it is made as part of the process. Like I said, so far, knock on wood, it has worked flawlessly, restoring my "C" and "D" drives (OS & Programs, the only ones I back up with DI 7), approximately 25GB, takes about 20 minutes when booting from the DI Boot disc. So, defragging those images turns out to be a waste of time and effort. I use Karen's Replicator to back up other folders, like Pictures, MPEG files, downloaded program installation folders and redundantly, financials and other special documents.
The only perceptible problem I have run into is clock settings after restore, they seem to get way out of kilter and may have caused some problems.
Maybe you remember a post on this issue that we discussed, but never found an answer for certain.
I don't even remember what the problem was now. With TI, I had several failures, I don't use it as a result.
...... using Acronis True Image ...... 
...... !
