Speed Disk vs Defrag

  • Thread starter Thread starter JCO
  • Start date Start date
J

JCO

These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag
removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the
harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
(Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of
speak) so that all the empty space is together.

If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should
use both tools.
My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
Can one tool undermine the other?

Thanks
 
Use one (1) of 'em.

JCO wrote:
> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
> Defrag
> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on
> the
> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of
> speak) so that all the empty space is together.
>
> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
> should
> use both tools.
> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
> Can one tool undermine the other?
>
> Thanks
 
use either one
at any time because
it "really" makes no
difference to the
"machine".

however, what i do
recommend is to ensure
you do a chkdsk to ensure
that the mft reconciles
with the file system,
before and after defrag-in.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>


"JCO" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02...
> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag
> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the
> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of speak)
> so that all the empty space is together.
>
> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should
> use both tools.
> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter? Can
> one tool undermine the other?
>
> Thanks
>
>
 
JCO wrote:
> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data
> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the
> HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up
> front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is together.
>
> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
> should use both tools.
> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it
> matter? Can one tool undermine the other?
>
> Thanks
>
>

First, IMO, the term defrag does not necessarily imply its going to
order anything. Defrag is just the process of joining all the segments
of a fragmented file into one file on contiguous sectors of the HD.
Not necessarily any special place. There are defraggers like O&O
defrag that I like that will let you order them by date used, date
created, name or just do a fast defrag filling holes.
I'm not sure if there is any logic to the built in version in XP.
And I truely can't talk about Norton.

So when you say Speed Disk does an ordering, and stacks it up front,
that's basically the same thing the internal XP one does, maybe not the
ordering, I don't know about XP's logic if any. It does pull all the
files forward (if you wish to use that term) and leaves the remainder of
the drive in the back. I do think however that XP's Defrag does hop
around the NTFS MFT files and any unmovable files. Norton might be
more bold and move a bit more. I've seen utilities that say they do
shuffle and rebuild the registry (which is normally unmovable) and MFT
area but I'm not sure I want those things moved on a running system anyway.

I think just running XP's defrag would suffice most system maintenance
plans.
 
"JCO" wrote in <news:3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02>:

> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag
> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the
> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of
> speak) so that all the empty space is together.

They are both disk defragmenters. They use slightly different criteria
as to what is the best scheme to defragment the files.

> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should
> use both tools.

No. Because each uses different criteria to defragment the file
sectors, one will try to defrag one way, the other will undo that defrag
(a bit) to do the defrag its way, the first one will undo the other
defrag again, and you keep going back and forth undoing some of what the
other defragger did.

> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
> Can one tool undermine the other?

Pick one and stick with it. I gave up on SpeedDisk somewhere back in
1999 when it could cause corruption of the file system. They may have
fixed that problem but then I gave up on all consumer-grade Norton
products back in 2003.
 
Thanks very much for the info.
Issue with the XP Defrag then is that it will only do one drive (partition)
at a time. I have 8-partitions so it's nice to set them all to Defrag and
go to bed.

"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message
news:YdednVpF2YDwldLVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@comcast.com...
> "JCO" wrote in <news:3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02>:
>
>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
>> Defrag
>> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on
>> the
>> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
>> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of
>> speak) so that all the empty space is together.
>
> They are both disk defragmenters. They use slightly different criteria
> as to what is the best scheme to defragment the files.
>
>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
>> should
>> use both tools.
>
> No. Because each uses different criteria to defragment the file
> sectors, one will try to defrag one way, the other will undo that defrag
> (a bit) to do the defrag its way, the first one will undo the other
> defrag again, and you keep going back and forth undoing some of what the
> other defragger did.
>
>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
>> Can one tool undermine the other?
>
> Pick one and stick with it. I gave up on SpeedDisk somewhere back in
> 1999 when it could cause corruption of the file system. They may have
> fixed that problem but then I gave up on all consumer-grade Norton
> products back in 2003.
 
fyi:

speed disk actually
reorganizes the file
system.

if i recall, it moves
all the system files
to the beginning and
sorts them alphabetically.

but again it really doesn't
make a difference to the
machine because as
you say defrag is simply to
clump files together to
reduce disk access time.

i prefer the windows
defrag method myself.
--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

"Big_Al" <BigAl@MD.com> wrote in message news:%FD3k.6776$3j2.2922@trnddc03...
> JCO wrote:
>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag
>> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the
>> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
>> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of speak)
>> so that all the empty space is together.
>>
>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should
>> use both tools.
>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter? Can
>> one tool undermine the other?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
> First, IMO, the term defrag does not necessarily imply its going to order
> anything. Defrag is just the process of joining all the segments of a
> fragmented file into one file on contiguous sectors of the HD. Not necessarily
> any special place. There are defraggers like O&O defrag that I like that
> will let you order them by date used, date created, name or just do a fast
> defrag filling holes.
> I'm not sure if there is any logic to the built in version in XP.
> And I truely can't talk about Norton.
>
> So when you say Speed Disk does an ordering, and stacks it up front, that's
> basically the same thing the internal XP one does, maybe not the ordering, I
> don't know about XP's logic if any. It does pull all the files forward (if
> you wish to use that term) and leaves the remainder of the drive in the back.
> I do think however that XP's Defrag does hop around the NTFS MFT files and any
> unmovable files. Norton might be more bold and move a bit more. I've seen
> utilities that say they do shuffle and rebuild the registry (which is normally
> unmovable) and MFT area but I'm not sure I want those things moved on a
> running system anyway.
>
> I think just running XP's defrag would suffice most system maintenance plans.
 
I use Norton's Speed Disk (Version 2006) and it does provide an option to
order files by:
Files First, Files Last and Files at End.
But it takes a lot of trial and error to make these options worth using.

JS

"Big_Al" <BigAl@MD.com> wrote in message
news:%FD3k.6776$3j2.2922@trnddc03...
> JCO wrote:
>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data
>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the
>> HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up
>> front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is together.
>>
>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
>> should use both tools.
>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
>> Can one tool undermine the other?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
> First, IMO, the term defrag does not necessarily imply its going to order
> anything. Defrag is just the process of joining all the segments of a
> fragmented file into one file on contiguous sectors of the HD. Not
> necessarily any special place. There are defraggers like O&O defrag that
> I like that will let you order them by date used, date created, name or
> just do a fast defrag filling holes.
> I'm not sure if there is any logic to the built in version in XP.
> And I truely can't talk about Norton.
>
> So when you say Speed Disk does an ordering, and stacks it up front,
> that's basically the same thing the internal XP one does, maybe not the
> ordering, I don't know about XP's logic if any. It does pull all the
> files forward (if you wish to use that term) and leaves the remainder of
> the drive in the back. I do think however that XP's Defrag does hop
> around the NTFS MFT files and any unmovable files. Norton might be more
> bold and move a bit more. I've seen utilities that say they do shuffle
> and rebuild the registry (which is normally unmovable) and MFT area but
> I'm not sure I want those things moved on a running system anyway.
>
> I think just running XP's defrag would suffice most system maintenance
> plans.
 
In article <3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02>, someone@somewhere.com says...
> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag
> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the
> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of
> speak) so that all the empty space is together.
>
> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should
> use both tools.
> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
> Can one tool undermine the other?

Actually, the pointers remain, that's how the file system works, each
cluster points to the next in line for the file to continue.

What Defrag attempts to do is make the FILE contiguous so that the r/w
heads don't waste time seeking across disk space without reading.

Fragmented file (F = File) . = some other file
FFF...F......FFFFFFFFF.....FFFF

Defragmented
.....FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.......

Defragmenting does not always include PACKING the files against each
other.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
 
"JCO" wrote:

> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag
> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the
> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of
> speak) so that all the empty space is together.
>
> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should
> use both tools.
> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
> Can one tool undermine the other?
>
> Thanks
>
>
Hello,
Do not know if one is better to use then the other.
It would seem using one then the other may be doing the job twice, just a
little differently.
There is a free program.
JKDeFrag
http://www.kessels.com/jkdefrag/
Smalll, easy to use.
It will defrag all drives and partitions.
take care.
beamish.
 
"JCO" wrote in <news:YOD3k.4070$8q2.2595@trnddc02>:

> Thanks very much for the info.
> Issue with the XP Defrag then is that it will only do one drive (partition)
> at a time. I have 8-partitions so it's nice to set them all to Defrag and
> go to bed.

Use the Task Scheduler for that. That's what I do. Schedule an event
to run the defrag once per month on each partition. Do NOT have them
all running at the same time. For 8 partitions, have them scheduled
(only an example):

defrag c: - 1st MON of the month
defrag d: - 1st TUE of the month
defrag e: - 1st WED of the month
defrag f: - 1st THU of the month
defrag g: - 1st FRI of the month
defrag h: - 1st SAT of the month
defrag i: - 2nd SUN of the month
defrag j: - 2nd MON of the month

Have them scheduled to run at, like, 3AM in the morning. Of course, you
could write a batch file that used the 'for' command to walk through a
series of drive letters and on each loop run the defrag.exe with that
drive letter as its parameter, and you could even schedule a single
event in Task Scheduler to run that batch file. Depends on how
convoluted you want to go: simple with lots of scheduled event, or more
complicated with a single schedule event.
 
"beamish" wrote:

>
>
> "JCO" wrote:
>
> > These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag
> > removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the
> > harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
> > (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of
> > speak) so that all the empty space is together.
> >
> > If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should
> > use both tools.
> > My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
> > Can one tool undermine the other?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> Hello,
> Do not know if one is better to use then the other.
> It would seem using one then the other may be doing the job twice, just a
> little differently.
> There is a free program.
> JKDeFrag
> http://www.kessels.com/jkdefrag/
> Smalll, easy to use.
> It will defrag all drives and partitions.
> take care.
> beamish.


I thought that I had my hard drive defragged and everything working just
fine until I tried to save a document that I made a couple of changes on
while working in Microsoft Word, I got the following messages:

"Unrecoverable disk error on file ~WRL1246.tmp. The disk you are working on
has a media problem that prevents Word from using it."

Also: "Word cannot complete the save due to a file permission error." Since
I also lost the file in its entirety (it had previously been successfully
saved) I am guessing that these messages mean that I have a hard drive
problem and probably need to replace it.

Anyone have any other thoughts on the meaning of these error messages? Thanks.
 
What extra unwanted baggage comes with Speed Disk?


--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JCO wrote:
> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data
> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover
> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and
> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is
> together.
> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
> should use both tools.
> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it
> matter? Can one tool undermine the other?
>
> Thanks
 
Yes I understand that. I was referring to the pointers from the end of one
file to the fragmented file at another location (not cluster pointers).
Thanks

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:1213149571_5379@news.usenet.com...
> In article <3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02>, someone@somewhere.com says...
>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
>> Defrag
>> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on
>> the
>> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
>> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of
>> speak) so that all the empty space is together.
>>
>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
>> should
>> use both tools.
>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
>> Can one tool undermine the other?
>
> Actually, the pointers remain, that's how the file system works, each
> cluster points to the next in line for the file to continue.
>
> What Defrag attempts to do is make the FILE contiguous so that the r/w
> heads don't waste time seeking across disk space without reading.
>
> Fragmented file (F = File) . = some other file
> FFF...F......FFFFFFFFF.....FFFF
>
> Defragmented
> ....FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.......
>
> Defragmenting does not always include PACKING the files against each
> other.
>
> --
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
 
In article <c0%3k.54036$bs3.32277@trnddc07>, someone@somewhere.com
says...
> Yes I understand that. I was referring to the pointers from the end of one
> file to the fragmented file at another location (not cluster pointers).
> Thanks

My understanding is that file space is allocated in clusters, with
sectors being the smallest space in a cluster, that the File Table
allocates FILES to Clusters, so the unused space in a cluster is wasted.

The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, the
FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters
point to the next cluster.

So, if your file is fragmented or not, if it takes more than one
cluster, it's going to have a pointer. In reality, it has a pointer even
if it uses a single cluster, but the pointer is more of a code that
there is no next cluster.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
 
Leythos wrote:

> In article <c0%3k.54036$bs3.32277@trnddc07>, someone@somewhere.com
> says...
>
>>Yes I understand that. I was referring to the pointers from the end of one
>>file to the fragmented file at another location (not cluster pointers).
>>Thanks
>
>
> My understanding is that file space is allocated in clusters, with
> sectors being the smallest space in a cluster, that the File Table
> allocates FILES to Clusters, so the unused space in a cluster is wasted.
>
> The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, the
> FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters
> point to the next cluster.

That is how it works with FAT/FAT32 but it doesn't work like that at all
with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the
MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual
cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number
to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute.

Reader may find the following articles informative:

INSIDE WINDOWS NT DISK DEFRAGMENTING
http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/169/01/17.html

NTFS On-Disk Structure
http://book.itzero.com/read/microso...d.ebook-ddu_html/0735619174/ch12lev1sec6.html

John
 
In article <#NnCTFJzIHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca
says...
> Leythos wrote:
>
> > In article <c0%3k.54036$bs3.32277@trnddc07>, someone@somewhere.com
> > says...
> >
> >>Yes I understand that. I was referring to the pointers from the end of one
> >>file to the fragmented file at another location (not cluster pointers).
> >>Thanks
> >
> >
> > My understanding is that file space is allocated in clusters, with
> > sectors being the smallest space in a cluster, that the File Table
> > allocates FILES to Clusters, so the unused space in a cluster is wasted.
> >
> > The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, the
> > FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters
> > point to the next cluster.
>
> That is how it works with FAT/FAT32 but it doesn't work like that at all
> with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the
> MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual
> cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number
> to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute.
>
> Reader may find the following articles informative:
>
> INSIDE WINDOWS NT DISK DEFRAGMENTING
> http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/169/01/17.html
>
> NTFS On-Disk Structure
> http://book.itzero.com/read/microso...d.ebook-ddu_html/0735619174/ch12lev1sec6.html

There have been a number of times that I've experienced a partition or
drive that was deleted using disk manager, and I've been able to fully
recover all files - so unless it's caching the MFT someplace other than
the drive there must be some way to link each cluster to the next.


--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
 
John John (MVP) wrote:
> Leythos wrote:
>
>> In article <c0%3k.54036$bs3.32277@trnddc07>, someone@somewhere.com
>> says...
>>
>>> Yes I understand that. I was referring to the pointers from the end of
>>> one
>>> file to the fragmented file at another location (not cluster pointers).
>>> Thanks
>>
>> My understanding is that file space is allocated in clusters, with
>> sectors being the smallest space in a cluster, that the File Table
>> allocates FILES to Clusters, so the unused space in a cluster is wasted.
>>
>> The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, the
>> FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters
>> point to the next cluster.
>
> That is how it works with FAT/FAT32 but it doesn't work like that at all
> with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the
> MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual
> cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number
> to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute.

That sounds like a more sensible and robust approach, since you don't have
to go out and read all the disk clusters to find out where the next one is
(and pray that one of them isn't corrupt, breaking the chain).

I assume they didn't do this (or couldn't do something like this) for FAT32,
due to some inherent limitations tracing back to its legacy and
compatibility with FAT16? Like prhaps the limitations of using 16 bit
(i.e. two byte) words to store some of this data, or pointers to the data,
and all of this dating back to FAT16 and its legacy?


> Reader may find the following articles informative:
>
> INSIDE WINDOWS NT DISK DEFRAGMENTING
> http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/169/01/17.html
>
> NTFS On-Disk Structure
> http://book.itzero.com/read/microsoft/0507/
microsoft.press.microsoft.windows.internals.fourth.edition.dec.2004.internal.fixed.ebook-ddu_html/0735619174/ch12lev1sec6.html
>
> John
 
In article <Oq#1ReLzIHA.3968@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
not_really_here@earthlink.net says...
> John John (MVP) wrote:
> > Leythos wrote:
> >
> >> In article <c0%3k.54036$bs3.32277@trnddc07>, someone@somewhere.com
> >> says...
> >>
> >>> Yes I understand that. I was referring to the pointers from the end of
> >>> one
> >>> file to the fragmented file at another location (not cluster pointers).
> >>> Thanks
> >>
> >> My understanding is that file space is allocated in clusters, with
> >> sectors being the smallest space in a cluster, that the File Table
> >> allocates FILES to Clusters, so the unused space in a cluster is wasted.
> >>
> >> The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, the
> >> FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters
> >> point to the next cluster.
> >
> > That is how it works with FAT/FAT32 but it doesn't work like that at all
> > with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the
> > MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual
> > cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number
> > to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute.
>
> That sounds like a more sensible and robust approach, since you don't have
> to go out and read all the disk clusters to find out where the next one is
> (and pray that one of them isn't corrupt, breaking the chain).

Actually you don't have to read ALL of anything - just the first one and
then it links to the next one, it's not like you have to read them all
just to know the file name or the size.

> I assume they didn't do this (or couldn't do something like this) for FAT32,
> due to some inherent limitations tracing back to its legacy and
> compatibility with FAT16? Like prhaps the limitations of using 16 bit
> (i.e. two byte) words to store some of this data, or pointers to the data,
> and all of this dating back to FAT16 and its legacy?

I still, after reading the links, don't see where ever cluster ID is
mapped in a file and what file name it's linked too.


--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
 
Leythos wrote:

> In article <#NnCTFJzIHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca
> says...
>
>>Leythos wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <c0%3k.54036$bs3.32277@trnddc07>, someone@somewhere.com
>>>says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes I understand that. I was referring to the pointers from the end of one
>>>>file to the fragmented file at another location (not cluster pointers).
>>>>Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>My understanding is that file space is allocated in clusters, with
>>>sectors being the smallest space in a cluster, that the File Table
>>>allocates FILES to Clusters, so the unused space in a cluster is wasted.
>>>
>>>The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, the
>>>FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters
>>>point to the next cluster.
>>
>>That is how it works with FAT/FAT32 but it doesn't work like that at all
>>with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the
>>MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual
>>cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number
>>to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute.
>>
>>Reader may find the following articles informative:
>>
>>INSIDE WINDOWS NT DISK DEFRAGMENTING
>>http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/169/01/17.html
>>
>>NTFS On-Disk Structure
>>http://book.itzero.com/read/microso...d.ebook-ddu_html/0735619174/ch12lev1sec6.html
>
>
> There have been a number of times that I've experienced a partition or
> drive that was deleted using disk manager, and I've been able to fully
> recover all files - so unless it's caching the MFT someplace other than
> the drive there must be some way to link each cluster to the next.

No, NTFS does not "daisy-chain" clusters! It's all held in the file
attributes within the MFT. The MFT has a mirror for error
recoverability, the location of both of those is held in the boot
sector. In addition to those there is a log file that is used for file
recovery.

John
 
Back
Top