Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Does Ghost produce a defragged copy?

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 4:05:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

This isn't specifically a 98 question, but I couldn't help but
notice this morning how quickly Ghost copies an entire partition to
another drive, as compared to the endless thrashing involved in
defragging such a partition.

And it occurred to me that the Ghost copy of a partition should
automatically be defragged. So in theory you could Ghost a partiton
to another drive as part of your normal backup process, and then
immediately Ghost it right back to produce a defragged original, all
in far less time, and with less thrashing, than the normal
defragging operation.

I guess you would lose the most efficient placement of frequently
used files, per the Applog data, but I turned all that off long ago.

Anyway, do you think this would work? If you have two physical
drives, why not make use of them?
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 4:05:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Peabody" <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:izcAe.74545$Fv.13406@lakeread01...
>
> Does Ghost produce a defragged copy?


It is easy enough to check.

After you have run Ghost on a fragmented partition,
run Defrag to find out if the newly-copied partition
is fragmented or not.
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 5:08:14 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

No, Norton or Any disk imager does nOt defrag as it duplicates, and it
duplicates sector for sector and byte for byte exactly as it was.

Use WME defrag for W9x if you want it to go faster.

Rick


Peabody wrote:
> This isn't specifically a 98 question, but I couldn't help but
> notice this morning how quickly Ghost copies an entire partition to
> another drive, as compared to the endless thrashing involved in
> defragging such a partition.
>
> And it occurred to me that the Ghost copy of a partition should
> automatically be defragged. So in theory you could Ghost a partiton
> to another drive as part of your normal backup process, and then
> immediately Ghost it right back to produce a defragged original, all
> in far less time, and with less thrashing, than the normal
> defragging operation.
>
> I guess you would lose the most efficient placement of frequently
> used files, per the Applog data, but I turned all that off long ago.
>
> Anyway, do you think this would work? If you have two physical
> drives, why not make use of them?
Related resources
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 4:19:44 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Peabody <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote:

>This isn't specifically a 98 question, but I couldn't help but
>notice this morning how quickly Ghost copies an entire partition to
>another drive, as compared to the endless thrashing involved in
>defragging such a partition.
>
>And it occurred to me that the Ghost copy of a partition should
>automatically be defragged. So in theory you could Ghost a partiton
>to another drive as part of your normal backup process, and then
>immediately Ghost it right back to produce a defragged original, all
>in far less time, and with less thrashing, than the normal
>defragging operation.
>
>I guess you would lose the most efficient placement of frequently
>used files, per the Applog data, but I turned all that off long ago.
>
>Anyway, do you think this would work? If you have two physical
>drives, why not make use of them?
>

If you use the "Partition Copy" function in Ghost then it copies the
selected partition file by file. The status bar shows the file names
as they are being copied. Doing it this way would defragment the
files.

At least that's the way it works on my very old copy of Ghost.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 4:19:45 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Ron Martell says...

> If you use the "Partition Copy" function in Ghost then
> it copies the selected partition file by file. The
> status bar shows the file names as they are being
> copied. Doing it this way would defragment the files.

> At least that's the way it works on my very old copy of
> Ghost.

Yes, I tried it with my very old copy of Ghost, running from
a floppy, and it did just as you said. Afterwards, I ran
the Windows defragger on the destination partition, but it
went through everything very quickly and found nothing to
defrag.

Which makes sense because you can copy to a partition of a
different size, even with a different cluster size, and it
copies fine. So it must just be copying the folders and
files, in which case no fragmentation need occur at the
destination. I guess it also clears all the deleted entries
from all the directories while it's at it. Pretty neat.
July 11, 2005 10:17:39 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Peabody wrote:
> Ron Martell says...
>
> > If you use the "Partition Copy" function in Ghost then
> > it copies the selected partition file by file. The
> > status bar shows the file names as they are being
> > copied. Doing it this way would defragment the files.
>
> > At least that's the way it works on my very old copy of
> > Ghost.
>
> Yes, I tried it with my very old copy of Ghost, running from
> a floppy, and it did just as you said. Afterwards, I ran
> the Windows defragger on the destination partition, but it
> went through everything very quickly and found nothing to
> defrag.
>
> Which makes sense because you can copy to a partition of a
> different size, even with a different cluster size, and it
> copies fine. So it must just be copying the folders and
> files, in which case no fragmentation need occur at the
> destination. I guess it also clears all the deleted entries
> from all the directories while it's at it. Pretty neat.
>
>

I spent an interesting week trying to format and clone SmartMedia cards
for use in a digital camera. Turns out that SmartMedia cards have
bad blocks that are marked bad. When you try to clone a card, you
also get new (wrong) bad block data.

That got me worrying about how Ghost works in cloning hard disks.
If my disk fails, will the old Ghost image work on the new disk?
I've got myself convinced that it works because hard disks have the
controller built-in and the bad sectors are actually remapped rather
than just marked bad during low level format. But if new bad sectors
appear that just got mapped out by Norton or scandisk, does ghost have a
problem?

mike


--
Return address is VALID but some sites block emails
with links. Delete this sig when replying.
..
Wanted, PCMCIA SCSI Card for HP m820 CDRW.
FS 500MHz Tek DSOscilloscope TDS540 Make Offer
Wanted 12" LCD for Compaq Armada 7770MT.
Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below.
MAKE THE OBVIOUS CHANGES TO THE LINK
ht<removethis>tp://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:28:20 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Rick Chauvin wrote:
> No, Norton or Any disk imager does nOt defrag as it duplicates, and it
> duplicates sector for sector and byte for byte exactly as it was.
>
> Use WME defrag for W9x if you want it to go faster.
>
> Rick

...amending my first reply

hmmm, you know after Ron Martel posted it got me to thinking about what I
said above, and as I thought about it more and thinking since any disk
imager when cloning a partition if it uses the smart sector copying which
is only copying the occupied space - and so in that mode then it makes
sense that it puts all the pieces of all files together on the destination
drive in order, and so in that sense then it would be defragmented yes. If
using the alternate full exact sector location copy method which some
imagers offer (earlier DriveImage versions did and that has it's inherent
distinct advantage for some needed situations) then that copies files right
as they are on the source drive to the same sector place on the
destination drive - so then in that case if it's not defragmented on the
source then it won't be on the destination, no.

Anyway, if Ghost uses the smart sector copy and only copies occupied space
then yes it makes sense that the target drive the files will be copied and
then placed together or subsequently defragmented..

Back to your OP though Peabody you also said that it takes along time to
defrag, but actually if your primary partition is at its optimal size of
under 8GB and also you're using the Windows ME defragmenter instead of the
stock 9x one, and you have all things running extra turned off like they
should be for proper 'in windows' defragging - then defrag time is very
fast anyway only taking minutes (for me anyway) ..and to restore an image
takes about 2 minutes as you noticed as well, and so it's about the same
time span to accomplish either task.

Thanks for the brain teaser thinking for this morning and I amend my first
post that said No, to now say Yes and sometimes No depending on imager
mode.

Rick
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:34:57 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Rick Chauvin says...

> Anyway, if Ghost uses the smart sector copy and only
> copies occupied space then yes it makes sense that the
> target drive the files will be copied and then placed
> together or subsequently defragmented..

Thanks for revisiting this.

I don't know about smart sectors, but as Ghost does its
thing, it flashes the name of each file it's copying, and
it's clear that the method is file-by-file. And everything
in the destination partition is contiguous (defragmented).

> Back to your OP though Peabody you also said that it
> takes along time to defrag, but actually if your primary
> partition is at its optimal size of under 8GB and also
> you're using the Windows ME defragmenter instead of the
> stock 9x one, and you have all things running extra
> turned off like they should be for proper 'in windows'
> defragging - then defrag time is very fast anyway only
> taking minutes (for me anyway) ..and to restore an
> image takes about 2 minutes as you noticed as well, and
> so it's about the same time span to accomplish either
> task.

Optimal size? It's a little over 3 GB. I mean, we're
talking 4k clusters here. :-)

But I didn't know about the ME defragger. Is that available
at some convenient place?

Thanks again.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:34:58 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Peabody" <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rsvAe.55655$iU.7975@lakeread05...
>
> But I didn't know about the ME defragger. Is that available
> at some convenient place?


http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/tec060902.html
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:42:29 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

mike wrote:

> I spent an interesting week trying to format and clone SmartMedia cards
> for use in a digital camera. Turns out that SmartMedia cards have
> bad blocks that are marked bad. When you try to clone a card, you
> also get new (wrong) bad block data.
>
> That got me worrying about how Ghost works in cloning hard disks.
> If my disk fails, will the old Ghost image work on the new disk?
> I've got myself convinced that it works because hard disks have the
> controller built-in and the bad sectors are actually remapped rather
> than just marked bad during low level format. But if new bad sectors
> appear that just got mapped out by Norton or scandisk, does ghost have a
> problem?
>
> mike

I know that Powerquest's previous versions Drive Image partition
duplication software as well as Powerquest's previous versions famous
Partition Magic will not operate if there are any sectors marked bad
whatsoever - it will stop and give an error code and will not let you
perform any operations unless you restore those marked out bad clusters to
service using SpinRite or one of the few other programs that can do that.

Rick
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 8:01:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Peabody wrote:
> Rick Chauvin says...
>
> > Anyway, if Ghost uses the smart sector copy and only
> > copies occupied space then yes it makes sense that the
> > target drive the files will be copied and then placed
> > together or subsequently defragmented..
>
> Thanks for revisiting this.
>
> I don't know about smart sectors, but as Ghost does its
> thing, it flashes the name of each file it's copying, and
> it's clear that the method is file-by-file. And everything
> in the destination partition is contiguous (defragmented).

That's just a name they use but it only means that it only copies clusters
that have data in it and skips the rest - that makes the process a lot
faster; otherwise as mentioned before a full partition copy copies
everything as is, occupied and empty, which of course also takes much much
longer but is very helpful in some needed situations - but only some brands
will do that special full function.

> > Back to your OP though Peabody you also said that it
> > takes along time to defrag, but actually if your primary
> > partition is at its optimal size of under 8GB and also
> > you're using the Windows ME defragmenter instead of the
> > stock 9x one, and you have all things running extra
> > turned off like they should be for proper 'in windows'
> > defragging - then defrag time is very fast anyway only
> > taking minutes (for me anyway) ..and to restore an
> > image takes about 2 minutes as you noticed as well, and
> > so it's about the same time span to accomplish either
> > task.
>
> Optimal size? It's a little over 3 GB. I mean, we're
> talking 4k clusters here. :-)

Excellent, the only way to go :) 
Optimal size is anything under 8GB which facilitates 4k clusters and is
very efficient for FAT32 to run on, as well the time it takes to defrag
your 3GB should be just minutes using the ME defrag which I see Hugh has
given you the link to get it, thanks. Just replace the one you have now
with the one on that webpage - it's that simple, and it will be almost
twice as fast as standard W9x was.

> But I didn't know about the ME defragger. Is that available
> at some convenient place?
>
> Thanks again.
!