 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: missing disk space on server, need help
Date: 9 Nov 2007 17:15:52
Message: <4734dc18@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> I've run a defrag, which freed 250 Mb.
>>
>> Defrags free disk space??
>
> Theorically, it shouldn't, I'm surprised too. The fact
> is that Windows seen more free space after defrag.
> chkdsk freed the rest !
>
Ah that's why. Defrag does *some* disk checking before starting. I doubt
it does a full chkdsk, or it would have (seemed to) solve your problem.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/09 09:46:
> Fa3ien escribió:
>> I've run a defrag, which freed 250 Mb.
>
> Defrags free disk space??
The OS want to assign a minimum contiguous space to any new or altered file. Any
free space lower than that thresshold is wasted, and often not reported.
Defragmenting consolidate that wasted space at the same tima it put fragmented
files back together.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those
entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it
into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Alain
Subject: Re: missing disk space on server, need help (SOLVED with chkdsk)
Date: 9 Nov 2007 22:01:08
Message: <47351ef4$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fa3ien nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/09 15:11:
> Orchid XP v7 a écrit :
>> Fa3ien wrote:
>>
>>> In short, a good'ol chkdsk /f solved the problem.
>>> I didn't knew that so much empty space could be
>>> erroneously marked as allocated...
>>
>> Woah! o_O
>>
>> That's one unhappy filesystem... heh. Glad it's all fixed now though.
>> (Although you probably ought to find out *why* it did this in the
>> first place...)
>
> I'll check regularly to see if it happens again... Maybe it's related
> to the problems I had with Raid in may. I currently run the server
> without Raid1, because the bad experience showed me that no raid (with
> a daily backup, anyway) is less of a potential hassle than shitty SIS
> software Raid (which is more insecure because it doesn't inform you
> correctly of the real array state).
>
> Fabien.
Faulty raid! Ugly. UGLY! *UGLY!!!!!*
Ready to bet that is was the reason of your vanishing space.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
An organizer for the "Million Agoraphobics March" expressed disappointment in
the turnout for last weekend's event.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
M_a_r_c wrote:
> message de news: 473472c5$1@news.povray.org...
>>> I've run a defrag, which freed 250 Mb.
>> Defrags free disk space??
>
> I am not an expert but maybe if it optimizes disk occupation by filling
> blocks instead of letting empty portions of blocks.
More precisely, if you have a fragmented file taking 3 blocks and
filling them each only 10%, defragging that file will free two blocks.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fa3ien wrote:
> WHERE IS THE REST ? (there should be 60 Gb free !)
Besides chkdsk, I was going to suggest making sure nobody has an open,
deleted file that's real big, like some logfile output that someone
deleted the file name but didn't close the program yet that has it open.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:26:48 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> More precisely, if you have a fragmented file taking 3 blocks and
> filling them each only 10%, defragging that file will free two blocks.
I don't think that can happen with "standard" files in NTFS or FAT - why
would the OS write to a partial block but not the entire block? Doesn't
make sense to me...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> M_a_r_c wrote:
>> le message de news: 473472c5$1@news.povray.org...
>>>> I've run a defrag, which freed 250 Mb.
>>> Defrags free disk space??
>>
>> I am not an expert but maybe if it optimizes disk occupation by
>> filling blocks instead of letting empty portions of blocks.
>
> More precisely, if you have a fragmented file taking 3 blocks and
> filling them each only 10%, defragging that file will free two blocks.
More precisely, how would this situation arrise in the first place?
The allocation engine allocates a full block to a file, and does not
allocate any additional ones until the present ones are full.
As noted elsewhere, in this case it's likely that the defrag partially
corrected the freelists or something. (Remember, the filesystem was
corrupted.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/12 13:43:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:26:48 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> More precisely, if you have a fragmented file taking 3 blocks and
>> filling them each only 10%, defragging that file will free two blocks.
>
> I don't think that can happen with "standard" files in NTFS or FAT - why
> would the OS write to a partial block but not the entire block? Doesn't
> make sense to me...
>
> Jim
Ever heard of "sparse" files?
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
To define recursion, we must first define recursion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:20:08 -0500, Alain wrote:
> Ever heard of "sparse" files?
Yes. Old hand at NetWare; didn't know that Windows filesystems supported
sparse files.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:26:48 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> More precisely, if you have a fragmented file taking 3 blocks and
>> filling them each only 10%, defragging that file will free two blocks.
>
> I don't think that can happen with "standard" files in NTFS or FAT
I don't know about FAT, but I was surprised when I saw a log file that
actually consumed more clusters than there were lines in the file. WTF?
> would the OS write to a partial block but not the entire block? Doesn't
> make sense to me...
Open the file, write a little bit, close it. Open it again, append a
little, close it. Repeat. Possibly it requires other people to also
have the file open at the same time, as for reading or something?
NTFS isn't very good at avoiding fragmentation, methinks.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
