NTFS converting woes...

I know this has been discussed many a time before, but being that I can't bump an older thread of the same subject, I am having problems converting my C: drive to NTFS. I have exactly the same issue as the one posted in an older thread (see, I do use the Search function):

http://www.windowsbbs.com/windows-xp/16928-convert-fat32-ntfs.html

This would have solved all of my problems, but I'm worried at what Abraxas stated in post #3:

Is this something I should look into (I did purchase my PC back in 2002), or am I fine in just converting after restarting?

 

Done it this way several times and it has always worked.
This is straight from MS.

How to convert a FAT volume or a FAT32 volume to NTFS
Note Although the chance of corruption or data loss during the conversion is minimal, we recommend that you perform a backup of the data on the volume that you want to convert before you start the conversion.

To convert an existing FAT or FAT32 volume to NTFS, follow these steps:
Click Start, point to All Programs, point to Accessories, and then click Command Prompt.
At the command prompt, type the following, where drive letter is the drive that you want to convert:
convert drive letter: /fs:ntfs
For example, type the following command to convert drive E to NTFS:
convert e: /fs:ntfs
Note If the operating system is on the drive that you are converting, you will be prompted to schedule the task when you restart the computer because the conversion cannot be completed while the operating system is running. When you are prompted, click YES.
When you receive the following message at the command prompt, type the volume label of the drive that you are converting, and then press ENTER:
The type of the file system is FAT.
Enter the current volume label for drive drive letter
When the conversion to NTFS is complete, you receive the following message at the command prompt:
Conversion complete
Quit the command prompt.

 

Yep, that's what I was ready to do until I read Abraxas' post talking about cluster sizes and converting through XP (see quote). But since I don't have Partition Magic, I guess his aforementioned rhetoric wouldn't really help me right now.

Kudos for the tip on the volume label as I'd better write that down before restarting. Made a backup, crosses fingers and here's to hoping all goes well!

P.S. I've hit 50 posts! (hides head in shame)

 

Happy to report that I converted my C: drive to NTFS without a hitch. Thanks for the confirmation MrBill. I am noticing some slowdown thoughout, particularly during the "Welcome" screen when booting up the desktop. It's taking longer than before. Is there some other settings to adjust, or is what Abraxas said in his post true?

 

I have always done my HD as NTFS. Can't do a comparison for you. I have redone a couple of hundred PC's and always do them NTFS. This has nothing to do with the above, but I also make my System Restore down to 5% and it saves a lot of disc space. Sorry that I can't help you any on the boot us time. I also make sure that I have a little as possible booting up and running in the background. Saves on System Resources as I like the OS to have as much of it as it wants. (if that is possible) lol

 

And so Devil, what size clusters do you have now??

 

5% huh? I think I might have to go adjust this down as well if it doesn't hurt anything. Especially for the D: partition, since its barely doing anything atm.

The only thing I have running in the background when booting up is BitDefender Antivirus 2009. At least, that's what only displays in the quick launch bar at the bottom right. I'd better check the Task Manager and see whats up. Any red flags I should look out for?

I would tell you if I knew where to look. I don't have Partition Magic or anything similar right now. CHKDSK maybe?

 

Look in the XP defrag applet. Just run the Analysis and it'll give you the info without doing a defrag.

chkdsk will also work but it takes a little longer. Run it without a /switch if so.

BTW, turn System Restore off for all drives except the System Drive. It serves no purpose on those drives.

 

Alright, so I ran the analysis, and found out that my cluster size is, according to Abraxas, the smaller 512 B and not the desired 4k. Is this bad? Maybe this is the reason why I feel my pc is running slower than before. As a side note, I quickly ran the analysis for the D: partition and observed it was a 4k cluster size on a FAT32 file system.

Here is the report for the C: drive-

Volume (C
Volume size = 65.30 GB
Cluster size = 512 bytes
Used space = 16.20 GB
Free space = 49.10 GB
Percent free space = 75 %

Volume fragmentation
Total fragmentation = 39 %
File fragmentation = 78 %
Free space fragmentation = 0 %

File fragmentation
Total files = 37,918
Average file size = 562 KB
Total fragmented files = 5,126
Total excess fragments = 526,169
Average fragments per file = 14.87

Pagefile fragmentation
Pagefile size = 720 MB
Total fragments = 2

Folder fragmentation
Total folders = 2,689
Fragmented folders = 38
Excess folder fragments = 335

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 45 MB
MFT record count = 44,207
Percent MFT in use = 95 %
Total MFT fragments = 4

 

Do as Arie says in his post with the Defrag. This is mine with NTFS. Looks like this on 4 different PC'a.

Volume (C
Volume size = 25.05 GB
Cluster size = 4 KB
Used space = 11.74 GB
Free space = 13.31 GB
Percent free space = 53 %

Volume fragmentation
Total fragmentation = 6 %
File fragmentation = 12 %
Free space fragmentation = 0 %

File fragmentation
Total files = 55,509
Average file size = 319 KB
Total fragmented files = 1,878
Total excess fragments = 10,840
Average fragments per file = 1.19

Pagefile fragmentation
Pagefile size = 900 MB
Total fragments = 1

Folder fragmentation
Total folders = 4,766
Fragmented folders = 32
Excess folder fragments = 262

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 63 MB
MFT record count = 60,493
Percent MFT in use = 94 %
Total MFT fragments = 2

 

Devil, Defrag that drive and see if it speeds up some.

 

I have compared system speed using 512 clusters against 4k clusters and have never been able to tell any difference in boot times or access speeds to any files, large or small. I think the quick seek/read times on any modern drive will render cluster size less important than it once was. I have some very large and complex spreadsheet programs and graphic files that work equally fast on either cluster size. I have always been left wondering what all the hoopla was about cluster size versus speed.

One difference I have seen, a smaller cluster size is most efficient in storing data since it reduces the wasted space when smaller files are written to larger clusters.

I have used Partition Magic ver. 8 for converting cluster sizes and find it to work very well. Aside from a power failure during the operation, it will be a safe conversion. However, I would never attempt ANY data manipulation process such as this without having a current drive image stored on separate media for backups.

 

Ran a Defrag, and here's the report after:

Volume (C
Volume size = 65.30 GB
Cluster size = 512 bytes
Used space = 16.18 GB
Free space = 49.12 GB
Percent free space = 75 %

Volume fragmentation
Total fragmentation = 2 %
File fragmentation = 5 %
Free space fragmentation = 0 %

File fragmentation
Total files = 37,634
Average file size = 568 KB
Total fragmented files = 49
Total excess fragments = 276
Average fragments per file = 1.00

Pagefile fragmentation
Pagefile size = 720 MB
Total fragments = 2

Folder fragmentation
Total folders = 2,705
Fragmented folders = 3
Excess folder fragments = 42

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 46 MB
MFT record count = 44,650
Percent MFT in use = 94 %
Total MFT fragments = 4

Still 512 B, of course. The speed of my system BARELY went up at all. Should I just restore my image that still had a FAT32 4k file system? Or do I seek out Partition Magic and convert the clusters with it? I don't want to format and lose everything (for the third time) just to acheive these stupid 4k cluster sizes!

I knew I should have left well enough alone and found some other way to access the files I had that were larger than 4 GB. Ughh....

 

This would be my last resort.

Hey surferdude, do you recommend or know of any free alternatives to Partition Magic that can convert the cluster sizes WITHOUT data loss? I'm only going to need it to perform this job and maybe convert some other drives to NTFS, if need be.

 

You can do a workaround that will accomplish your goal without buying any software. It will require that you have a separate partition to store a clone copy of the source drive. I have done this with no problem.

I use the freeware Xxclone to clone the source drive (or partition) to a target drive (or partition). Select the option Xxclone offers to insert a command line to set up a dual-boot to the clone. Test boot it to be sure you have a viable system to move forward with. Then I boot to the clone and format the old source drive to NTFS with 4kb clusters. Then I clone the stored copy (which I'm booted to) back to the newly formatted drive using Xxclone again. Since Xxclone uses straight data copy, it will place the cloned copy into the new clusters appropriately without altering the partition format. It also will render a perfectly defragmented drive. Xxclone is a very fine free software and very user friendly. You can easily edit out the dual boot to the clone (boot.ini file) and delete the system on that drive when you are satisfied that the newly created 4k cluster system is working as it should.

Basically it's just cloning a clone back to the original partition after changing the format of the original.

This all sounds more complex and risky than it really is. I have done it many times without a hitch. If you elect to do so and have any questions (after reading the Help files that come with Xxclone) I'll be glad to assist you.

I find this method saves a lot of time reinstalling the system from scratch and having to do all the updates and added software, etc. No reactivation needed either.

 

I hope it's not as complex as you have written.

BTW, "cloning" the drive would be better for this situation than using a backup I made with Macrium Reflect?

Couldn't have said it better myself! But I researched a program called Partition Logic. Do you think this would perform similar to PM? (Sorry if touching off-base)