T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
5927.1 | It Depends... | CSC32::K_MEADOWS | | Fri Apr 18 1997 07:12 | 24 |
| On my 600MB NTFS partition, the MFT is 4390912 bytes. This system was
recently installed and I don't use it for much more than the NT files.
(FYI: My 1GB "user" partition which has not been formatted for 2 years
has a 13MB MFT.)
If you have a lot of files or have done alot of file creates at one
time, the MFT will have grown - it never shrinks.
A reformat and then restore is probably your only option.
Does the Executive software utility give you any more detailed
information about the MFT -number of free records, size of free
segment, ????
I have a copy of the Inside NTFS book but it does not give algorithms
for calculating the initial size or talk about "reasonable" size of the
MFT.
Of course the size of the disk determines the size of the MFT record
and the cluster size, so if the
file attributes don't fit into the MFT record, a "cluster size" amount
is allocated to contain that information.
If you find anything else, let us know!
|
5927.2 | | STAR::DZIEDZIC | Tony Dziedzic - DTN 381-2438 | Fri Apr 18 1997 08:02 | 12 |
| Interestingly enough, the graphical display shows the "Reserved MFT
Space" as approximately 225 Mb. The textual display shows the MFT
size as 20 Mb (20508 kb), with 20508 records, and 82% of the MFT in
use. In the past I've had quite a few more files on this disk than
at present, but I find it hard to believe the MFT could have grown
so large. Then again, how "reserved MFT space" relates to the MFT
size is up for debate (Diskkeeper doesn't document it).
Norton's SpeedDisk for NT doesn't show the details of the MFT.
I'll probably resort to a save/restore operation to see if that
fixes the problem.
|
5927.3 | | nova05.vbo.dec.com::BERGER | | Fri Apr 18 1997 09:39 | 20 |
| I believe that's simply a "problem" with the graphical display of
Diskeeper. The allocation unit (cluster) is 512 bytes, so a 2GB disk
is ~4M clusters. Even is DK used each pixel of a 1280x1024 display to
show your disk occupation each pixel would still have to account for
~4 clusters. If 4 contiguous clusters are not all allocated for the
same type of thing (MFT, directory, file, etc.) how is it displayed ?
And of course DK uses more than one pixel for each "unit", otherwise
you coudn't see much could you ?
For example if I had to believe the graphical display of DK on my 4GB
disk, I'd be worried because I'd think it's almost full (free space
occupies barely 3% of the graphical display) whereas it has 1.5GB
free.
So take the graphical display for what it is, a rough visual feedback
of how fragmented your disk is. Your MFT is probably really 20MB big,
not 225MB. Does it make you feel better ? ;-)
Vincent
|
5927.4 | | STAR::DZIEDZIC | Tony Dziedzic - DTN 381-2438 | Fri Apr 18 1997 10:17 | 20 |
| After several runs at defragging the disk (using Norton's packing
feature), the largest free space is only about 5 MB. Both Norton
and Diskkeeper show a big chunk (about 250 MB) at the front of the
disk - Norton shows it as "free", while Diskkeeper shows it as
reserved MFT space (Norton doesn't indicate the MFT).
Ignoring the graphical display for the moment, and assuming that
multiple runs of the defragmentation tools have packed the files
as tightly as possible, it would seem reasonable that the big
chunk would result in the largest free space being substantially
greater than 5 MB.
Since Diskkeeper lists the entire region as "reserved MFT space",
I'm inclined to believe that space is not usable for data storage;
the largest free space number seems to agree with that.
I have an identical drive on order. I'll try cloning the drive
with the big MFT and see if the clone shows different results for
reserved MFT space after all the files are copied.
|
5927.5 | | TARKIN::LIN | Bill Lin | Fri Apr 18 1997 11:03 | 10 |
| re: .4 by STAR::DZIEDZIC
>> I have an identical drive on order. I'll try cloning the drive with
>> the big MFT and see if the clone shows different results for reserved
>> MFT space after all the files are copied.
Try not to make your cloned disk too faithful a reproduction of your
original disk or you won't be any better off.
;-)
|