| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 31105 | 2003-03-12 02:47:00 | defrag NT4 via W2K?? | ian hpcw (3340) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 127502 | 2003-03-12 02:47:00 | My NT4 workstation partitioned drive not longer wants to defrag properly with Disk Keeper Lite - ie after defragging it is not much better than before. I have 1 gb of the drive used and 2 gb available. I have run CHKDSK on the drive before Diskeeper Lite runs. Qtn : - Can I copy files and folders across my network to my newer larger quicker PC that is running Win 2000 - Run Defrag on that PC and copy the same data folders back on to my NT4 Workstation PC?? Altnatly: - any other sugestions to better defrag my NT4 machine? thanks |
ian hpcw (3340) | ||
| 127503 | 2003-03-12 04:16:00 | Sorry Ian You can't defrag across a network like that. All that will happen is that in politically-correct speak, the files wil be "differently fragmented" as they write back to your HD. Maybe that is why the program is "lite", you won't get full performance without paying for it. It could also be reporting high levels of fragmentation to encourage you to buy, but I'm not cynical. You could use Norton utilities to do the job, and I wouldn't be surprised if you found that you could run the Win2K defrag program on NT as they are based on the same code. Best to get some more advice before trying that though, as you could munge your data. Wait a while and see what some of our other experts have to say on the subject. Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 127504 | 2003-03-12 06:52:00 | Yep, Im with you billy :-) | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 127505 | 2003-03-12 07:26:00 | Well :) I have done some research and it appears that Win2K has a defrag.exe built on the same defrag engine Ian has been using. It will defrag FAT32 and NTFS, so provided he boots to safe mode, there doesn't seem to be any real reason why he couldn't use that for NT4. It is a bit like the way we use the WinME defrag engine for W95/98. Any comments ?:| Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 127506 | 2003-03-12 07:39:00 | > Well :) > > I have done some research... > Any comments ?:| Nope, sorry, I got lost on the word research. Are you saying there's no reason why you cant just copy the Win2K defrag.exe across and give that a shot? Sounds viable |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 127507 | 2003-03-12 07:57:00 | If you move them off the fragmented drive, defrag the drive and move them back then they will be written back contigous and you will have defragmented the drive. This is because the fragmentation is to do with the drive, not the files themselves. | BIFF (1) | ||
| 127508 | 2003-03-12 08:30:00 | Read the original Biff, that is not what was suggested. Ian wanted to defrag his files on another computer then write them back. It seems a reasonable hypothesis that the Win2K defrag exe will run on NT but I did read a warning about using other disk utilities as they would update NT4 to the newer NT format, making them unreadable with NT4. I don't think this warning applies to defrag, but caveat emptor. Cheers Billy 8-{) :| |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 127509 | 2003-03-17 03:02:00 | The NT4 PC that has the badly defragmented drive - Its mainly a 'Data' folder that has a large number of subfolders that have been added over a period of time . Disk Keeper Lite does mention that moving folders/subfolders about on the drive can be a problem when defragging . However if I copy the entire Data folder and all of its subfolders/contents to my other machine . If I then delete the original Data folder, defrag the drive and then simply copy the Data folder back from the other machine wouldn't this have the result of putting my subfolders and their contents in their correct physical place on the drive? i . e without runnign drag in the copied Data on the W2K PC/ . . or isn't it that simple? Thanks! |
ian hpcw (3340) | ||
| 127510 | 2003-03-17 05:18:00 | A file is fragmented if there is no area on the disk big enough to hold them . Copying a file to another disk (or another computer) produces a new file . It will be fragmented or not depending on the state of the disk it is copied to . Whatever you do (defragging) to the file on that new disk is done only on that disk . When the file is copied back to the original disk, whether it is fragmented will depend on the state of the free space on that disk . You can't defrag Disk A on Disk B . Copying files to another disk, deleting the originals, defragging the source disk, and copying back will defrag the files . But that's because the area which held the fragmented files has been emptied out, and all the free space is contiguous . The files will then be written one at a time and will be cleaned up . So yes Ian, there is a Santa Claus . :D It is that simple . . But its's probably better to get a decent defragger . |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 127511 | 2003-03-17 10:52:00 | I did read the original, Billy T. It wont work. -the files will not be fragmented when they get written onto the Windows 2000 machine, and therefore wont need defragmenting. That is why I suggested he move the files to the Widnows 2000 workstation, clean up the local disk and put them back.... in tidy contiguous order.... |
BIFF (1) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||