defrag (W98)

[nailknot]

I recently defrag my hard drive , and noticed some files marked as "data that will not be moved".
What is this data and how do I identify it ???

[TonyKlein]

I'm not sure, but I believe that these are mostly due to the read-only file attribute having been set.
Defrag reads/moves/rewrites. If it can't be rewritten, Defrag can't do anything with it.

I doubt whether there's anything you'd want or need to do about that.

[report_2]

My assumption is that they are either system or shared files that if moved would mess things up as too many programs or applications point to this file and it's location in the file allocation table.

It could be that it's current location is the closest position to all of the applications that are using it.

[BertImmenschuh]

The unmoveable files are made up of the swapfile [win386.swp], hidden files, some read-only files, and system files.

System files are Command.com, msdos.sys, io.sys, and probably the dblspace/drvspace files.

In addition, some programs will put a 'marker' file on the drive that can't be moved.

Having said that is the way it is with Windows/MS-DOS, there is a way to move most of them.

The swapfile can be defragged by using the Virtual Memory settings in Device Manager and disabling the swapfile [need at least 64MB RAM to do it], then restarting and running defrag. When done, reboot and set up the Virtual Memory again. If it is desired that the swapfile not get fragmented again, set the Virtual Memory to Let me manage it and give it a max and min figure of 2.5 times your system RAM, e.g. 64MB x 2.5 = 160MB swapfile.

Also, Norton Utilities can defrag the drive and the swapfile. Haven't tried it with Ontrack Fix-It Utilities but assume a similar situation with it.

We all, each of us, have a uniqueness, some of us enjoy it, some of us don't.

[report_2]

Thanks for the clarification but for better comprehension purposes, why can they not be moved? What is the problem in moving them or should I say what is the logic behind their inability to be moved?

Re: Swap file - If I have 1gb of RAM and a 4GB hard drive; If I set my swap at 2.5 times the size of my RAM it will not leave much for storage of applications or data.

I have 192mb RAM and regardless of the size of my swap file I find I am unable to make my swap file in use any larger than 6mb so if I had it set to 480mb or .5gb it would certainly be a waste of space.
I believe the 2.5 logic or rule applies to machines with less than 64mb RAM.

The only reason I mention this is because I give a lot of credit to your postings Bert but in this case I do not want to see folks wasting away their hard drives when System Monitor is available to better determine the size of their swapfile if they do not want Windows to properly manage it.

No offense intended.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by report_2 on 08/19/02 13:24.</FONT></P>

[Mocha]

I don't mean to intrude, but I don't agree that the 2 1/2 times your RAM only applies to less than 64MB. That would also be a good setting for 128MB.

You can just double it, if you want to. There's no set rule that it has to be 2 1/2. It can be anywhere between 2-3 times, and you can try different settings.

The idea is to give it plenty of room to expand, which can help prevent "out of memory" errors and crashes.

Common sense would tell you, that if you have over 500MB installed, it would be ridiculous to have 1 Gig swap file under most circumstances. Although some people actually do, if they have extremely large hard disks.

Carol

[BertImmenschuh]

"e.g. 64MB x 2.5 = 160MB swapfile"

The e.g. part of that is Latin for the phrase "for example", it is not a limiting phrase.

And you're right about the 'no set rule', just is a suggested rule of thumb seen in numerous places on the 'net and in print. It was explained some time back that it should be big enough to hold the contents of the RAM twice over plus a little more.

WinXP in the Help and Support file actually recommends 1.5 times RAM for XP, but that's XP, it's much better at managing memory.

We all, each of us, have a uniqueness, some of us enjoy it, some of us don't.

[BertImmenschuh]

Since the days of MS-DOS 6.22, Win3.x, and Norton Utilities [NU], DOS-defrag would not move certain files DOS had declared unmoveable but Norton would. MS-DOS 5 didn't have defrag, had to get NU. Defrag appears to have been mostly a licensed 'lite' version of NU Speeddisk. Windows 95 couldn't even move the unmoveable with Defrag, again it took NU to do it.

Basically, Windows doesn't like to move its own operating area around, likes to keep track of where it's at.

As to the swap file size, I only quoted what has been seen on numerous 'net sites and in print. There is no set rule, except in the WinXP Help and Support file, 1.5 times RAM is recommended.

I have seen video editing crash on a computer with 512MB and letting Windows manage the swapfile. Setting the file to 1.2GB kept the video from crashing. I guess it's all in what is being done with the computer.

My WinXP has 512MB RAM and the swapfile is full at 393MB at this moment but I have three browsers open and a card game running.

Some people recommend no swapfile at all with 512MB or more RAM, which probably works fine for them. HOWEVER, I have seen programs that were written to look for a swapfile and if it was not there, would not install.

As to 1GB RAM and a 4GB drive, would that be a realistic scenerio in the 'real' world?

The debate over the proper, or correct, or reasonable, size of the swapfile is guaranteed to go on forever. Everyone will be right and everyone will be wrong and accusations will fly as to which is which. Recommendations are built that way, guaranteed to cause 'discussion'.

We all, each of us, have a uniqueness, some of us enjoy it, some of us don't.

[report_2]

Thank you again and I agree with you on all counts.