Why does copying files to a new hard drive not defragment it?

Arno wrote:
MS filesystems suck. The fragmentation problem has long since
been solved for the rest of the world.


Well, I'm not sure if it's even a problem on MS NTFS filesystems either.
I don't have any clue how fragmented files get on my Linux drives, and
that's because I don't know of any file defragmentation utilities for
Linux. Maybe that's a good thing? They must all be getting fragmented,
but it doesn't make any difference to performance.

Yousuf Khan

Ed Light wrote:
I get fragmentation with xxcopy. I've assumed it's making temp files as
it goes along. Possibly Windows Explorer will do better.

Ah, okay, so you've noticed it too. Perhaps what someone else suggested
here that turning system restores off will do the trick?

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote
Ed Light wrote

I get fragmentation with xxcopy. I've assumed it's making temp files as it goes along. Possibly Windows Explorer will
do better.

Ah, okay, so you've noticed it too. Perhaps what someone else
suggested here that turning system restores off will do the trick?

Nope, it wont produce the effect you are seeing with JUST a copy of files to the new drive.

Yousuf Khan wrote:
Ed Light wrote:
I get fragmentation with xxcopy. I've assumed it's making temp files
as it goes along. Possibly Windows Explorer will do better.

Ah, okay, so you've noticed it too. Perhaps what someone else suggested
here that turning system restores off will do the trick?

I have it off. I make frequent images and use the latest one if
something happens. Data is on another partition.

I really think that the culprit is temp files.


--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:45:21 -0800 (PST), YKhan put
finger to keyboard and composed:

On Feb 28, 8:36*pm, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
Depends what you use to copy: xcopy vs explorer, XP vs Vista, FAT32 vs NTFS.
I know when I tested it long ago in Win2K, files were mostly sequential.
(because the file copy API preallocates the destination)

Well, it was XP and the source and destinations were all NTFS in all
cases.

I used a couple of different utilties, one was TeraCopy for my data
drive, and XXClone for my system drive. I don't think either utility
does anything different than standard utilities like Xcopy or
Explorer's Copy do.

Yousuf Khan

XXCLONE's "Theory of Operation" page:
http://www.xxclone.com/itheory.htm

================================================== ===================
When a clone operation is performed for the first time, all the files
created on the target volume will be stored in a contiguous region.
Therefore, the clone operation in full backup mode automatically
performs the so-called "de-frag" operations.

The competing products that are based on a sector-to-sector
duplication principle propagate the same degree of fragmentation found
in the source volume to the target.
================================================== ===================

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:25:10 -0800, Ed Light put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Yousuf Khan wrote:
Ed Light wrote:
I get fragmentation with xxcopy. I've assumed it's making temp files
as it goes along. Possibly Windows Explorer will do better.

Ah, okay, so you've noticed it too. Perhaps what someone else suggested
here that turning system restores off will do the trick?

I have it off. I make frequent images and use the latest one if
something happens. Data is on another partition.

I really think that the culprit is temp files.

Is there an unerase utility that can tell you if any files were
created and then deleted during the copy operation?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Is there an unerase utility that can tell you if any files were
created and then deleted during the copy operation?

Total Uninstall produces a text log of installs and before/
after changes. Might be worth looking at, haven't used it
for other than uninstalls where it does a pretty good job
of removing what InstallShield has been programmed to
leave behind. Like traces of previous installs.
www.martau.com
He responds to emails, queries, etc and has a users forum.

Yousuf Khan wrote:
Arno wrote:
MS filesystems suck. The fragmentation problem has long since
been solved for the rest of the world.


Well, I'm not sure if it's even a problem on MS NTFS filesystems either.
I don't have any clue how fragmented files get on my Linux drives, and
that's because I don't know of any file defragmentation utilities for
Linux. Maybe that's a good thing? They must all be getting fragmented,
but it doesn't make any difference to performance.

Linux filesystems have very very little fragmentation, similar
to other Unix filesystems. There is an ext2 defragmenter, but
there is so little need for it, nobody ever uses it.

e2fsck with option '-v' displays the degree of fragmentation.

Arno

On 1 Mar 2009 15:32:34 GMT, Arno put finger to
keyboard and composed:

MS filesystems suck. The fragmentation problem has long since
been solved for the rest of the world.

Arno

Some time ago I experimented with a floppy disc file system (FAT12):
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....1?dmode=source

Using Win95 DOS, I copied two small files (1 sector and 2 sectors,
respectively) to a newly formatted diskette, deleted them both, and
then copied a third file (3 sectors). Even though the FAT was empty,
the third file was copied to cluster 4 rather than cluster 2 (the
first cluster in the data area), leaving the disc fragmented.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:25:10 -0800, Ed Light put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Yousuf Khan wrote:
Ed Light wrote:
I get fragmentation with xxcopy. I've assumed it's making temp files
as it goes along. Possibly Windows Explorer will do better.
Ah, okay, so you've noticed it too. Perhaps what someone else suggested
here that turning system restores off will do the trick?
I have it off. I make frequent images and use the latest one if
something happens. Data is on another partition.

I really think that the culprit is temp files.

Is there an unerase utility that can tell you if any files were
created and then deleted during the copy operation?

- Franc Zabkar

Now you're past my experience level :-)

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.