Does Ghost produce a defragged copy?

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?
10 answers Last reply
More about does ghost produce defragged copy
  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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/
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Partition Microsoft Windows