# Solved: Padding the MFT for NTFS Systems.



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

An interesting article accompanied by screenshots which is well worth reading.

http://www.barrys-rigs-n-reviews.com/reviews/2004/utilities/dsk90pro/dsk90pro1.htm


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Hopefully we are not turning into an advertising forum for individual products. I like Diskeeper, as well as a lot of other products, but never thought to post reviews of them.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

I like Windows also but would also not like to see any Windows advertisements posted either.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

Well, now that you believe that this IS a tip, please use THIS thread to explain the benefits.

ESPECIALLY, how padding the MFT zone when it isn't completedly allocated, provides any increase in performance.

The link says nothing about this, yet you continue to recommend it.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

WhitPhil,

I also await for Rampage's responses to this and other claims being made around this forum. So far none have been answered with other than tangents to more misinformation, more misinformation or cutsie little remarks that do nothing but clarify the level of technical expertise.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Other things that can help performance:

1. Faster hard drive. While earlier ones spun at 5400 rpm, it is relatively easy to get ones that spin at 7200 or 10,000 rpm's. If you do the math, you will see what a dramatic increase in performance you can get for relatively little cost.

2. Better video card if using a lot of graphic intensive applications. These often can have their own processor which helps reduce the load. 

3. Faster processor - This should go without saying.

4. General file cleanup - Especially the user's TEMP directory.

5. Regular spyware and virus scans - One of the big tip off's lately for being infected is a sudden drop in performance.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

Not sure who or what you are referring to.

Seems like a question was raised about how, in previously mentioned claims in other posts, padding the MFT zone when it isn't completedly allocated, provides any increase in performance. This would be good information to provide.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

Ok, I'll ask again.

The "incessant" commentary, is an attempt to get you to respond to a simple question.

Which is:

If the MFT zone is NOT completely in use, why does padding it have any affect on performance. (as you are indicating)


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Having tried the product, an educated guess would say that pre-allocating space in the MFT allows for things, especially on-line games, to have a reference point available in advance of being downloaded to the drive.

I was hoping that a clear technical statement would be made by the manufacturers of Frag-Shield, but I can't find one to date.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Is there a way to provide more technically information than just making a guess?

For example, is there any documentation you can provide? Otherwise the claim that padding the MFT zone when it isn't completedly allocated, provides any increase in performance seems like it is on a bit of thin ice (if that phrase is understood).


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Bob Cerelli said:


> Is there a way to provide more technical information other than making a guess?
> 
> For example, is there any documentation you can provide? Otherwise the claim that any increase in peformance produced by padding the MFT zone when it isn't completedly allocated, seems like it is on a bit of thin ice (if that phrase is understood).


If the MFT is 99% full then there will be an increase in fragmentation. An increase in fragmentation leads to a decrease in performance.

From Diskeeper 9 Professional Help

" Frag Shield
Note: This feature is only available when Diskeeper is running on Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003.

Also Note: The Frag Shield option is not available in Diskeeper Home Edition.

Use the Configure MFT/paging file option in the Change your settings menu to open the Frag Shield dialog. (This option is also available from the Action menu.) Follow the instruction displayed to configure your MFTs and paging files.

Frag Shield helps you configure your MFTs and paging files as recommended in published Microsoft guidelines. Following these recommendations will help keep these critical system files contiguous.

Frag Shield is comprised of two components: the MFT configuration tool and the paging file configuration tool. These tools allow you to set up your paging file(s) and MFT(s) such that fragmentation will be very unlikely to occur in the future.

After running Frag Shield once, data gathered by Diskeeper during future analysis and defragmentation jobs as well as data gathered periodically on paging file usage is used to determine if either configuration tool should be run again. Should the need arise to run either tool again, you are given a recommendation and are provided a link to easily access the appropriate tool. In most cases, once these tools are run they will not be needed again.

Note that any scheduled defragmentation jobs are temporarily suspended when the Frag Shield dialog is opened. Also note that any running Diskeeper defragmentation engines will be automatically stopped before Frag Shield makes any changes to your computer configuration.

Configuring the MFT
The Master File Table (MFT) is, in a sense, a file containing records about each file on an NTFS disk volume. In general terms, one file record exists in the MFT for each file on the volume. (There are exceptions to this. For example, a highly-fragmented file can require multiple file records in the MFT to store the information about the many fragments that make up the file.) When an NTFS volume is first created, Windows reserves a portion of the volume for the MFT. As files are added to the disk volume, the MFT grows as additional file records are added to it. As the disk fills, it is possible for the MFT to outgrow the space originally reserved for it. When this happens, additional new space is reserved for the MFT, but this new space is usually not adjacent to the original MFT zone. This is the cause of MFT fragmentation.

Also, when free space becomes too low, files get written into the space reserved for the MFT, thus causing the MFT to eventually expand around these files in a fragmented manner. This is another common cause of MFT fragmentation.

The MFT configuration tool helps pre-extend the MFT in a contiguous manner, so future growth of the MFT will not result in fragmented extensions of the file. Approximately one spare file record is needed for each file that will occupy the volume in the future. The number of file records to add is determined in one of two ways:

Frag Shield recommends the size increase based on the estimated number of files that could occupy the volume. This estimate is based on the current average file size and amount of available free space.

You can enter in how many files you estimate will potentially occupy the volume.

Tip: Pre-extending the MFT can be beneficial in the early stages of setting up a computer system, including cases where you are creating "images" of the system to deploy to other computers.

Once the number of file records to add has been determined, Frag Shield ensures it is safe to add these records. In other words, there must be adequate free space in the volume (20% after the MFT has been expanded) and if adding the records would fragment the MFT, or the MFT is already too fragmented, then the MFT is defragmented and/or files are moved to allow the MFT to extend continuously. (Windows NT and Windows 2000 require MFT defragmentation be done at boot-time.)

On an ongoing basis, whenever analysis and defragmentation of the volume is done, the percentage of free MFT space is checked and if it is beyond a certain percentage of use, the Reliability pane shows this information, recommends the MFT configuration tool be run again, and provides a link to run the tool.

Note: Once the MFT is extended, it cannot be reduced in size without reformatting the volume.

Configuring Paging Files
The paging file is an area of a disk set aside to temporarily hold data intended to reside in computer memory. As the operating system needs physical memory (RAM), it temporarily moves less-used data from the RAM to the hard disk. Data is copied back and forth between the paging file and the system memory as needed. This is known as "paging" or "swapping".

When Windows is first installed, a paging file is initially created based on the amount of physical memory (RAM) detected on your computer. Windows establishes both an initial and a maximum size for the paging file. Over time, this default paging file can become too small, so Windows extends the file, often in a non-contiguous manner. When the paging file becomes fragmented, it takes the operating system longer to move data into and out of the paging file, thus slowing the computer.

The Frag Shield paging file configuration tool helps you set the paging file size correctly and handles any fragmentation incurred during the process. By specifying a correct size for the paging file, you allow it to handle all the memory needs of the system without needing for it to grow and potentially fragment as a result. Since the paging file can only be defragmented when the computer boots, it is especially beneficial to prevent it from fragmenting.

One possible solution to paging file fragmentation is to choose a size for the paging file that is large enough to accommodate current and future memory needs in such a way that it would never grow, then set the initial and the maximum paging file sizes to this value. The main disadvantage to this approach is that it could increase the paging file size unnecessarily, thus robbing you of disk space.

Microsoft recommends the following method to determine the appropriate size of a paging file:

"You can also determine the appropriate size of a paging file by multiplying the Paging File\% Usage Peak counter value by the size of Pagefile.sys. The % Usage Peak counter indicates how much of the paging file is being used. Consider expanding the page file whenever either this counter reaches 70 percent of the total size in bytes of all paging files or the Memory\% Committed Bytes In Use counter reaches 85 percent, whichever occurs first."

Frag Shield monitors these counters to periodically compute the appropriate size of the paging file. When you open Frag Shield, and whenever a defragmentation or analysis is done, Frag Shield uses the collected paging file usage data to make a recommendation as to whether the paging file minimum size and maximum size should be expanded, and by how much. You are given other basic statistical data regarding your memory usage and can elect to use the recommendation or choose different values for the initial and maximum paging file sizes.

When you choose to make size changes to the paging file, the paging file configuration tool determines if a reboot or defragmentation is needed and takes the necessary actions.

As a note, you might occasionally open a very large file or open many files at once, which will expand the paging file. Later, the operating system will reduce the page file in size. Thus, in this case it is beneficial to have a different initial and maximum paging file size, as it allows it to only take up space on the disk as needed. If expanding the page file under these circumstances would fragment it, when it is reduced in size again the extra fragments would be eliminated due to the size reduction. Therefore, some expansion and contraction is useful and does not cause any long term fragmentation.

On an ongoing basis, whenever analysis and defragmentation of the volume is done, the calculated optimum page file size is checked against the current page file size. If the current size is determined inadequate, the Reliability pane shows this information, recommends the page file configuration tool be run again, and provides a link to run it."

What does thin ice have to do with it?


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

RAM-PAGE said:


> Having tried the product, an educated guess would say that pre-allocating space in the MFT allows for things, especially on-line games, to have a reference point available in advance of being downloaded to the drive.


But, there is already preallocated space, called the MFT zone, that allows for expansion.

This frag shield is just making this larger.

What are you referring to as a "reference point"? This "pad"? The "MFT"?


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

I'll leave it there.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

That's part of the continuing problem, you leave it. WhitPhil has good points which fail to be addressed. 

In general it sound like you have a real like for Diskeeper, some undocumented succss, and want to push that as the solution for an amazing amount of problems. But given the way responses are being handled, it is somewhat difficult to believe it could solve that many issues.

Can you maybe give specific performance results before, exactly what was done, and then performance results afterwards.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

From another of your posts:

"In fact, six out of ten drives, this week alone, needed to have the MFT adjusted by Frag-Shield.

All have improved performance."

In addition to text files from a vendor, which in this case would be expected to claim their product to enhance a computer's performance:

What were the specific performance parameter to measure this.
What was the value before any changes were made
What were all the changes made
What were the the values after these changes


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Thought I'd do some reading up on MFT even though I mostly, but not exclusively, use Win9x.

From Microsoft:
Link

excerpt>>


> To prevent the MFT from becoming fragmented, NTFS reserves 12.5 percent of volume by default for exclusive use of the MFT. This space, known as the MFT zone, is not used to store data unless the remainder of the volume becomes full.
> 
> Depending on the average file size and other variables, as the disk fills to capacity, either the MFT zone or the unreserved space on the disk becomes full first.
> 
> ...


Other sources:
Link


> To prevent the MFT becoming fragmented, Windows maintains a buffer around it. No new files will be created in this buffer region until the other disk space is used up. The buffer size is configurable and can be 12.5%, 25%, 37.5% or 50% of the disk. Each time the rest of the disk becomes full, the buffer size is halved.


More on MFT :
Link

I see no reason to purchase Diskeeper for allocating added space to the MFT.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Just a thought.......maybe what I posted above is a good reason not to partition off a drive as has been recomended, with NTFS? Each time the main partition is reduced, I get the impression the MFT zone is also reduced. So...I would think there might be some point at which partitioning might become counter productive for efficiency.

Comments anyone?


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Thanks Jack, that is all very useful. Having run Frag-Shield, been advised to pad all four MFTs and then run it again to find that I had to pad the drive C: MFT manually, by entering a value, it has now re-computed the sizes and settled down.

As you can see from this thread. http://forums.techguy.org/showthread.php?p=2352198#post2352198

It seems as if the system wasn't reading the drive right. Similar to ScanDisk not reporting free-spce right.

Now the size of the MFTs seems to be being read correctly, and the drive is working better than ever, so I am really pleased.

You can check all of this with the 30 day evaluation copy. If anyone decides to buy then that is their free choice according to their pocket, but I really think that it should be part of XP Professional anyway and that MS should include it in with the system, as it does make a decided difference.

But then I think that there should ony be one computer manufacturer and one operating system, one anti-virus, (one army, one people), and so on.

More like a Minitel system.

I don't think too much of all of this competition, it doesn't agree with a oneness of spirit somehow.

Here is a direct link to NTFS.COM http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs-mft.htm

I find that Diskeeper is well worth while, as it will defrag the MFTs and Paging files and certainly speeds the system up.

As it seems to take care of most of the problems associated with running on NTFS, if it were to be part of the Operating System, rather than having to buy it after suffering much frustration with drive management, then I am sure it would make our lives a lot easier, and then nobody would be running XP on FAT32, which would certainly help to standardise the system.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

From another of your posts:

"In fact, six out of ten drives, this week alone, needed to have the MFT adjusted by Frag-Shield.

To help better understand the specifics:

1. What were the specific performance values to measure this. For example boot time, time to load different applications, shutdown time, etc.

2. What was the value before any changes were made.

3. What were all the changes made.

4. What were the the values after these changes.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

I didn't keep any records, so there is no way of saying. Next time I get a new install and use Diskeeper 9 Professional's innovative Frag-Shield program I'll make a point of doing so.

Try it out for yourself and post your results, if you get the opportunity.

The real object of the excercise is to get Microsoft to incorporate the entire program into the XP operating system instead of just offering the basic defrag.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Too bad no data is available to help substation the claims and how how increasing the padding when it is not full to begin with helped performance.

Since recent posts almost exclusively expound on the virtues of Diskeeper 9, and that is a relatively new product, what did you do before for general maintenance before then and what do you still do now (in addition to padding the MFT file). Or do you do these now completely separate. One computer gets all the general maintenance and defrags and another just gets the MTF padding increased.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

And to make sure all is clear, the confusion is not whether it is beneficial to Defrag, or whether it is beneficial to have an adequate MTF size. That's pretty obvious. it is the claim that just by increasing the MFT size, even though it was only 75% full, dramatically increased performance. That's the change where it would be beneficial to get more details on.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

I think there might be concerns of too many partitions to manage, Iain, in your situation.

If the hard drive is having to do more searching thru multi MFT's, wouldn't there be a degradation of performance due to mechanical seek times of the hard drive?
I'm not suggesting to limit the number of partitions to one, but there is beginning to sound like there might be performance degradations with too many partitions and then....where is the break for that performance loss------or, how many partitions are too many from the performance aspect?


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

I use diskeeper pro. I think it is a "good" product. I do a bootime defrag occasionally but the real reason I bought it was so I didn't have to manually defrag my drives. 

I can't stand doing that. I have never padded the MFT. Maybe I'll try it. Maybe not.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Hey Skivvy 

If you do, could you run some sort of performance tests to see if there is a measurable increase in performance?


Thanks

Jack


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Stoner,

Good point. I seem to recall some recent posts where 4-7 partitions were being recommended. Some performance testing needs to be done to see if that many are really necessary and what happens when there are. Seems like something less than that would be more manageable.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

OK, but before I do it what would you say is a fair performance test? PCMark04? PC Pitstop.com?

Lets get an agreeable benchmark and I'll do a before and after bench. I have broadband so as long as the size is under a few hundred megs I'll download the bench of choice.

HDtach?? http://www.majorgeeks.com/download672.html


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

I AM not going to partition my drive into splinters though. You guys need a better guinia pig than me to do that.

I will do an MFT pad.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Bob Cerelli said:


> Too bad no data is available to help substantiate the claims as to how increasing the MFT, when it is not full to begin with, helped performance.
> 
> Since recent posts almost exclusively extoll the virtues of Diskeeper 9, and that is a relatively new product, what did you do before for general maintenance, and what do you do now (in addition to padding the MFT file).
> 
> Or do you do these now completely separate? Does one computer get all the general maintenance and defrags and another just gets the MTF padding increased?


NOTE: The word 'padding' only means 'making bigger'.

In the original case the MFT on the C: drive was 99% full. The case where it was 75% full was on another computer where there is only one partition.

General 'maintenance' aside which primarily consists of anti-viral and anti-trojan measures, when using Diskeeper 9 Professional with Frag-Shield, I run an analysis first of all and then defrag, to see the comparative difference.

I then run Frag-Shield and adjust the size of the MFTs according to the program recommendations and then run a boottime defrag where the MFTs and paging file are defragmented. I check the chkdsk box as well for good measure.

Diskeeper 9 is just a further development of Diskeeper 8.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Bob Cerelli said:


> And to clarify things, the confusion is not whether it is beneficial to defrag, or whether it is beneficial to have an adequate MTF size. That is fairly obvious. It is the claim that just by increasing the MFT size, even though it was only 75% full, dramatically increased performance. That's the change where it would be beneficial to get more details on.


As I said in the previous post the effect was first noticed where it was found that the C: drive MFT was 99% full and causing a degradation in performance.

When it was noted the other drive where it was reported as being 75% full was also treated as it was recommended that the size of the MFT be increased. Thereafter it was immediately noticeable that the system was running better then before.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Round 1. I ran the three I mentioned. PCMark I already had so it was no biggie. HDTach is only a meg or so, it was no biggie. PCPitstop.com just loads an activeX to your browser so that was also easy.

This is with a fresh boot time defrag, and an in windows defrag with a fresh reboot. The next set of tests will be done the same way. I'll be back as soon as I am done.

(I don't believe I am doing this.)

Going to pad the MFT. I hope my puter survives this Ram-Page.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Bob Cerelli said:


> Stoner,
> 
> Good point. I seem to recall some recent posts where 4-7 partitions were being recommended. Some performance testing needs to be done to see if that many are really necessary and what happens when there are. Seems like something less than that would be more manageable.


That is a really good idea Bob. When you have the results be sure to let us have them.

I only go up to the recommended fdisk limit of four partitions per physical drive on my own equipment.

For the majority of home users two partitions, C: & D: are probably sufficient.

More proficient users may have designs for multi-partitioned drives and triple disk raid drives but I prefer to stick to basics, as I mentioned to Jack.

Certainly the world was a much better, and safer, place before all of this 'innovative' technology and rocket science came into being.

One day the industry might see it that way and give up altogether, and just decide to retire on the proceeds.

I live in hope.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Skivvywaver said:


> Round 1. I ran the three I mentioned. PCMark I already had so it was no biggie. HDTach is only a meg or so, it was no biggie. PCPitstop.com just loads an activeX to your browser so that was also easy.
> 
> This is with a fresh boot time defrag, and an in windows defrag with a fresh reboot. The next set of tests will be done the same way. I'll be back as soon as I am done.
> 
> ...


Well now, you're a lovely man do be doing us all such a service. Let's hope that the Little People smile upon you and your 'puter for evermore.

Little People > 

I look forward with great expectation to round 2.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Skivvywaver said:


> OK, but before I do it what would you say is a fair performance test? PCMark04? PC Pitstop.com?
> 
> Lets get an agreeable benchmark and I'll do a before and after bench. I have broadband so as long as the size is under a few hundred megs I'll download the bench of choice.
> 
> HDtach?? http://www.majorgeeks.com/download672.html


I'm not much into benchmarking, Skivvy. Mostly, in the past, I've accepted known performance tweaks and been pleased, but seat of the pants testing .
I'm afraid I'm not qualified to provide a standard test.

Choose what you think is a good one and let's run with it 

edit.....I see you're already into it :up:


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Round 2. I haven't compared them myself yet. I'll find out when you all do. I deleted the pics, cleaned my cache, and run disk cleanup before both tests. I ran them in the same order. Let me upoad these and we'll see what happened.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

LOL, They are just about identical. I got a whopping 10 points in PC mark, but lost 2 points at PCpitstop. The HDTach is identical. Yes I sacrifice for the cause Ram-Page. :up:


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Stoner said:


> I think there might be concerns of too many partitions to manage, Iain, in your situation.
> 
> If the hard drive is having to do more searching thru multi MFT's, wouldn't there be a degradation of performance due to mechanical seek times of the hard drive?
> I'm not suggesting to limit the number of partitions to one, but there is beginning to sound like there might be performance degradations with too many partitions and then....where is the break for that performance loss------or, how many partitions are too many from the performance aspect?


Dammit Jacques, I even have problems with the parting of my hair! As you can see:> 

(Looks like a trinity of Whot?s, don't you know.)

I think you refer to there being too many divisions, but that is more politico-religious. 

I can hardy wait for the results. I hope that Skivvy is standing up to the strain.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Skivvywaver said:


> LOL, They are just about identical. I got a whopping 10 points in PC mark, but lost 2 points at PCpitstop. The HDTach is identical. Yes I sacrifice for the cause Ram-Page. :up:


10 points! Belissimo! 

I hereby confer full membership of Our Cause upon you Skivvy. 

Welcome to Cosa Nostra. 

Don't forget the bit about silence. It is very importante!

Well done! Now we know that we have to happen upon a drive in really bad shape before needing to check the MFTs to see if that may be where one of the many factors affecting gradual performace degradation lies.

Generally these things are akin to chaos theory. The more faults there are the worse things get until one arrives at system breakdown.

Prevention is the way to go as all good preventative maintenance people know only too well.

So remember, if too many snowflakes stick together you end up with an avalanche.

All the lessons to be learned are there, in nature. Defy Mother Nature at your peril, for She will certainly not smile upon you!

Your HD Tach results are very similar to mine. I just wish that I had run these tests before padding the MFT.

What is gone is behind us. We shall just have to look forward to a brighter future.

Thank you for your patience. A truly splendid effort and a very generous giving of your time.

Thank you.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Thanks Skivvy.........:up:

I don't doubt that Diskeeper is a fine product and can correct a problem, but it is looking like the MFT padding issue doesn't relate to a computer set up and functioning as Skivvy's does.

Perhaps the focus should be to multi partitioned drives of an unusual number of partitions?

Skivvy? How many partitions on your drive and how big are they?


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Looks like your right there Jack. Skivvy evidently knows what he is doing. 

Do you think I should change my Avatar for a 2CV, btw?


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Oh no you don't. I have one drive that has 1 and only 1 partition on it and it is going to stay that way.

To be fair, I do keep my machine in good working order or at least to the best of my abilities so this really doesn't mean allot. Like Ram-Page said we need a machine that hasn't been taken very good care of to do this series on. How about you Jack???


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

I'm on 98se, 3 partitions on a 60 gig hd and very happy ...thank you very much.
I was just asking for reference, Skivvy.....I don't expect anyone to set up a multi partitioned test on a home or work computer......that's for the advertising guys like Diskeeper.


I see you got one bench test from Major Geeks, where did you get the other two. I think I'll do the same out of interest on my P3 500 machine with 98se on it.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

RAM-PAGE said:


> Do you think I should change my Avatar for a 2CV, btw?


If you can cut the image of one down to an avatar size with good clarity, that would be cool :up:.......


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Stoner said:


> I'm on 98se, 3 partitions on a 60 gig hd and very happy ...thank you very much.
> I was just asking for reference, Skivvy.....I don't expect anyone to set up a multi partitioned test on a home or work computer......that's for the advertising guys like Diskeeper.
> 
> I see you got one bench test from Major Geeks, where did you get the other two. I think I'll do the same out of interest on my P3 500 machine with 98se on it.


Just a tip on '98 for you Jack. (Don't you think three partitions to be a bit excessive, btw?) I digress.

There is an MS KB article somewhere on the merits of formatting to 8192 bytes in each allocation cluster for some '98 installations as the drive utilities run better. I don't remember the specifics, not having seen a '98 for some time now.

(A:\>format c: /Z:16 , if you ever need to.)

Just thought that it might be of some use to you.

Yep, I should do some work on that Avatar with Paint Shop Pro.

Got to go, the maid says its time for dinner.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

You can get PCMark from Majorgeeks also. PCPitstop is an online bench.

www.pcpitstop.com

You have to register to use it but they are cool. No spam will come of it. You do have to give them a valid address though be it webmail or pop.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

RAM-PAGE said:


> Just a tip on '98 for you Jack. (Don't you think three partitions to be a bit excessive, btw?) I digress.


Never thought about it 
Till now


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

In other forums, you were recommending anywhere from 4-7 partitions. Why the sudden change?


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

Maybe to help with your performance documentation on this, to be more specific, what are the better performance performance results the many people are getting? Again, I would assume that if you are making the claim, would by now be a fair of data to back that up. Just haven't seen it.

1. Since there is the claim of increased performance, what is being increased? Boot time? Time to open various applications? Network throughput? It's got to be something that can be timed. A general sense of things being faster really doesn't offer that much. Then measure that performance before any changes are made. 

2. Only make one change at a time. So if padding the MFT is supposedly what is increasing performance, just do that. Do not do any file cleanups, spyware scans, derfags etc. 

3. Document the current configuration. So if padding MFT is the big performance gain, what was it before and after. 

4. Then measure you performance again and post the results.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Just install the product, fire it up, click on the Performance tab and defrag the selected drive. I just got a 58% improvement in read-time.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Defragging is pretty basic and would likely increase performance. But that's not what your original claim was. 

The bulk of the discussions in this an other posts are related to wondering how much the MFT padding is increasing performance. 

Clicking on the Performance tab and doing a Defrag does absolutley nothing to back this up. Too much is being changed in the process.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Also, if you just got a 58% improvement in read time after doing a Defrag:

Why, given all your posts on this forum about needing to Defrag, did you wait so long on your own computer?

I can't imagine that if you keep doing defrags that regularly, you are going to continue to get 50+% improvements each time. It would be nice but extremely unlikely.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Hopefully you are not simply relying little graphic that the vendor gives you as an actual increase in performance.

Some real world performance testing would be far superior. I would at least want to see something like accessing a large program before and after results. For example does something like Adobe Photoshop which at least on my computer go from 30 seconds to 15 seconds to open? That would truly be amazing. But just relying on the vendor to say how well their product is functioning seems a bit of a conflict of interests. Or at best suspect.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Bob Cerelli said:


> Hopefully you are not simply relying little graphic that the vendor gives you as an actual increase in performance.
> 
> Some real world performance testing would be far superior. I would at least want to see something like accessing a large program before and after results. For example does something like Adobe Photoshop which at least on my computer go from 30 seconds to 15 seconds to open? That would truly be amazing. But just relying on the vendor to say how well their product is functioning seems a bit of a conflict of interests. Or at best suspect.


I couldn't agree more. I used to use Millennium Edition.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Other than advertising descriptions, and since none has been provided, I've been trying to find some actual performance testing has been done regarding Diskeeper9

One site that actually had performance data:
http://www.sysopt.com/reviews/diskeeper/index2.html

"Benchmarks seem to show Diskeeper 9 offering a slightly better file system improvement compared to the XP defragmenter. The improvement comes at a cost of slower completion time. "

Mix of user opinions based on features and performance:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11889368~mode=flat

If anyone else has done similar testing or found similar pages with actual results, it would be good to know.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

PDF File

(Unsubscribe.)


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

While Diskeeper is certainly faster than the one with Windows2000 (not sure that was ever disagreed with), I still don't see anything in that regarding the main issue, the titles of this forum "Padding the MFT for NTFS Systems."

Is there any performance data saying how much better a system performed after the MTF was padded?


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Why don't you just try it out for yourself Bob? I haven't seen any, but if Frag-Shield prevents fragmentation occuring in the first place, then the performance will be better as a result.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

But I'm not making any tremendous claims of performance increase due to padding a MFT that is not completely full. Just asking the question to see it if it is true. 

Again, I like Diskeeper and have used it for years. Also see the benefits of defragging computers. It is just this one claim that I am asking about and would like to see some stats or something on. If I was the one making that claim, then I would have something to back it up.

But I really would rather not do your homework for you on this one.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

RAM-PAGE said:


> Why don't you just try it out for yourself Bob? I haven't seen any, but if Frag-Shield prevents fragmentation occuring in the first place, then the performance will be better as a result.


FragShield "may" prevent fragmentation *in the future*, unless your MFTs are already completely allocated.

Thus, any potential (however large or small) performance improvements will also *be in the future* unless your MFTs are already close to being completely allocated.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Still wondering how much the MFT padding is increasing performance. 

Anyone anywhere have some independent performance results on this?


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

I ain't doing it again. You try it Bob.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Still waiting for the person that started this whole thread to supply some unbiased documentation how much Padding the MFT for NTFS Systems will increase performance. 

Been asking repeatedly in this an another threads but continue to get nothing but diversions or unrelated information.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Preventing breakdown improves performance on its own. When the system has broken down it cannot perform at all and this is known as down-time. Down-time costs money and is something which the industry seeks to avoid.

There you can see the marked difference between preventative maintenance and breakdown maintenance.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Give it up Bob, go skydiving. I checked out your site. Very nice, not a bunch of garbage on it. 

I was bored last night and went through it. The trs80 brought back some memories. My brother in law had one and probably still has it also. I'll ask him next time we talk. He takes very good care of his stuff so I'd bet it still works. I remember my sister was lucid over the price he paid for it.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

WhitPhil said:


> FragShield "may" prevent fragmentation *in the future*, unless your MFTs are already completely allocated.
> 
> Thus, any potential (however large or small) performance improvements will also *be in the future* unless your MFTs are already close to being completely allocated.


Now that is a very true statement. Certainly Frag-Shield cannot have any effect before it is put into use, so any improvements will have to noted "in the future", i.e. after using Frag-Shield.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Can you give specific instances of this. Just can't believe that until Diskeeper 9 showed up on the market place, that NT was so unstable to be always breaking down to a MFT padding problem. I would assume if that were the case, you would have ample evidence to back up this claim. 

Or is this just a general statement that it is obviously better to prevent problems, and is really unrelated to anything specific regarding padding the MFT.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

While the statement is true, it has nothing to do with the padding of MFTs since a "non-padded" one will not cause down-time.

Also, please remember your original recommendation that doing this padding *will* result in improved performance, and the recurring question asking how this can occur when an MFT is not completely allocated to begin with.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Skivvywaver,

Was thinking about jumping today some. Been a while and it's clear blue skies. Glad you enjoyed the photos.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

WhitPhil said:


> While the statement is true, it has nothing to do with the padding of MFTs since a "non-padded" one will not cause down-time.
> 
> Also, please remember your original recommendation that doing this padding *will* result in improved performance, and the recurring question asking how this can occur when an MFT is not completely allocated to begin with.


If the MFTs require padding the program will tell you.

No point in padding them if it doesn't recommend that you do so.

Anyway, if anyone obtains Diskeeper 9 Professional, Frag-Shield comes inclusive, as does the ability to defragment the paging file and Master File Tables.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

RAM-PAGE said:


> Now that is a very true statement. Certainly Frag-Shield cannot have any effect before it is put into use, so any improvements will have to noted "in the future", i.e. after using Frag-Shield.


Man, I wish you would learn to read!

On a system that does not have MFTs completely allocated, installing Fragshield can not have any affect on performance.

The only time this "improvement" *would* have been noticed is if the MFTs were already fragmented.

But, if you install FragShield now (in the present) on a partition with MFTs not completely allocated, when&if you add enough files to that partition to cause the MFTs to exceed their default MS allocation, there would no longer be a the "future" (potential) hit in performance.

I don't think there is any argument with the fact that protecting a MFT (that is currently not completely used) from fragmentation, has the *potential* to smooth performance. (in the future)


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

RAM-PAGE said:


> If the MFTs require padding the program will tell you.
> 
> No point in padding them if it doesn't recommend that you do so.
> 
> Anyway, if anyone obtains Diskeeper 9 Professional, Frag-Shield comes inclusive, as does the ability to defragment the paging file and Master File Tables.


Sorry, but your recommendation in this thread was to pad them, because it improves performance.

If that is really not what you meant, please say it.

And, I see no use of installing DK9 to tell me if my MFTS are filling, I can just do a quick review of the Report from Defrag. Which, btw defrags MFTs already.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

WhitPhil said:


> While the statement is true, it has nothing to do with the padding of MFTs since a "non-padded" one will not cause down-time.
> 
> Also, please remember your original recommendation that doing this padding *will* result in improved performance, and the recurring question asking how this can occur when an MFT is not completely allocated to begin with.


Have you used the program yet, to establish just how it works?


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

Why in the world would I do that?

My MFTs are fine from a percentage point of view.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

For General Info


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

OK. Thanks.

Now, you have the help files.

What exactly is Current Read Time measuring as well as Optimum Read Time?

It can't be to access a single file, since 120ms is brutally slow.

If it is meant to measure an improvement of 120ms (in total???) that's only .1 of a second. Hardly measurable at the desktop.

And the current read time and Optimum read times are identical. So how is that interpretted?


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Phil, if you don't know, you don't know. No point in asking me, find out for yourself.

School is out.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

I'm not sure that using the manufacture's own graphic is exactly the best independent measuring tool around. Remember only a few years ago when video card manufacturer's were supplying their own tools that would show their cards as being better by testing those things that their cards did better. Only after independent testing got around, this practice stopped.

Again, no one but Rampage is making this persistent claim and yet he can't provide any documentation anywhere that padding the MFT file, even when it is not full, does anything at all to increase performance. If it doesn't exist, then don't make the claim. If it does, back up what you say with facts. Pretty simple request.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

I think it is safe to assume at this point, that unless you can ever provide any documentation that just padding the MFT file shows any increase in performance, you are only here to degrade the accuracy and lessen the benefit this forum has to offer. 

Until then pretty much all you have to say of suspect at best.

Waiting......


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Again, no one but Rampage is making this persistent claim and yet he can't provide any documentation anywhere that padding the MFT file, *even when it is not full*, does anything at all to increase performance. If it doesn't exist, then don't make the claim. If it does, back up what you say with facts.

"*even when it is not full*"

These are your words, not mine.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

RAM-PAGE said:


> Phil, if you don't know, you don't know. No point in asking me, find out for yourself.
> 
> School is out.


Dear Mr Mac:

YOU are the one posting a graphic, with absolutely no supporting documentation.

I asked a very simple, civil question for an explanation and you immediately hop on your high horse.

Since THIS answer is one that you can easily provide (no guesswork, no interpretation, strictly vendor docs), I don't see why you are being so uppity.

But, just the nature of the beast it would appear.

And, it's really too bad. We could have easily resolved this relatively easily.

But ......


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

RAMPAGE,

Yes. In posts on this forum, you claimed that you had a MFT that was only 75% full. After increasing the size, performance was greatly increased. 

That's what many of us have been wondering about and asking for. Something to back up your claim.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

RAM-PAGE said:


> "*even when it is not full*"
> 
> These are your words, not mine.


This is only about the 50th time that this type of wording has been used, and it started in you NTFS Performance thread where you stated (with no reservations)

*Defragmentation of Paging files, Master File Tables, and the Padding of Master File Tables, for systems running on NTFS, is vital for good performance. FRAG-SHIELD is part of Diskeeper 9 Professional and will do this job perfectly for you.*

This indicates that Padding the MFTs on ALL partitions, regardless of allocation, will result in good performance.

If it is NOT all MFTs regardless of allocation, speak up now, and some of these questions being posed will disappear.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Bob Cerelli said:


> Rampage,
> 
> I think it is safe to assume at this point, that unless you can ever provide any documentation that just padding the MFT file shows any increase in performance, you are only here to degrade the accuracy and lessen the benefit this forum has to offer.
> 
> ...


In fact, I am hoping to close the entire computer business down, Bob.

Except for the Professional user.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

It is unfortunate that you can't remember even your own posts and feel the need to take this accusatory tone.

To help refresh you memory:
http://forums.techguy.org/showthread.php?t=329189&page=1&pp=15
Post #4

Claimed that the MTF was running a 75% full. Ran Frag-Shield and "A very noticeable difference in performance."

But the only performance data you can give is "Applications ZAP open now"

That is what has been requested over an over again. And all you can do is avoid the answer. This later one was a good attempt at trying to claim you never said it in the first place. Creative but not very productive.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

Ok.

From the Diskeeper documentation, this is what that graphic means.

*"Time to Read All Files on Volume C"*

Since the red and green lines are identical (approx 115 minutes), _"overall the data on the drive is now read in 0% less time than before defragmentation"._

My interpretation?
Since it is zero, there is no improvement as a result of the defragmentation

*"Time to read only fragmented files on volume C*

_The fragmented files are now read in 54% less time than before defragmentation._

Before defragmentation that time was approx 315ms. After defragmentation,that time is approx 130ms, with a *total* resulting savings of approx 185ms. or about .2 seconds.

My interpretation?
This improvement would never, ever be noticeable.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

WhitPhil,

Great observation. Even Rampage's own data shows minimal performance gain. Too funny. And after all this time. 

Gonna be fun to see how this either gets explained away or diverted to some other discussion.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

"Before defragmentation that time was approx 315ms. After defragmentation,that time is approx 130ms, with a total resulting savings of approx 185ms. or about .2 seconds."

So now all you have to do is to take a worst case scenario.
Imagine that all the files, 100%, are fragmented, and I have seen drives that were over 80% fragmented.

Multiply 2·0 seconds by the total number of files on your computer's C: drive.

In my case at this point in time 23,418

23,418 x 0·2 = 4683.6 seconds.

Now if only 10% of these files are fragmented that would be 468.6 seconds.

So what do you make of that?


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

But you keep missing and diverting from the main topic of your post.

Since hopefully you can now recall how you stated that although a computer where the MFT was only 75%, by increasing the size caused an increase in performance.

You can finally show some performance tests that back any of this up.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

WhitPhil said:


> This is only about the 50th time that this type of wording has been used, and it started in you NTFS Performance thread where you stated (with no reservations)
> 
> *Defragmentation of Paging files, Master File Tables, and the Padding of Master File Tables, for systems running on NTFS, is vital for good performance. FRAG-SHIELD is part of Diskeeper 9 Professional and will do this job perfectly for you.*
> 
> ...


I don't see the words "even when it is not full".


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

RAM-PAGE said:


> "Before defragmentation that time was approx 315ms. After defragmentation,that time is approx 130ms, with a total resulting savings of approx 185ms. or about .2 seconds."
> 
> So now all you have to do is to take a worst case scenario.
> Imagine that all the files, 100%, are fragmented, and I have seen drives that were over 80% fragmented.
> ...


First:
You posted this graphic to support your claim that padding MFTs gave you a 54% improvement in performance.
And, as I have pointed out, the 54% is a meaningless number.

Second:
You posted this graphic in support of your claim of dramatic, vast, and all those other superlatives that you tend to use.
And, again that claim is unsubstatiated.

As for the arithmetic above, that would seem to support doing defrags just in case you ever want to read *ALL* THE FILES on your drive.

No one is arguing the "potential" benefit of defrags.

And, please stop heading out on another tangent.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

RAM-PAGE said:


> I don't see the words "even when it is not full".





whitphil said:


> "This indicates that Padding the MFTs on ALL partitions, regardless of allocation, will result in good performance.
> 
> If it is NOT all MFTs regardless of allocation, speak up now, and some of these questions being posed will disappear."


Since you gave no caveats in your recommendation, it reads that this should be done on ALL MFTs.

IE: Even the ones that are not full!!!!


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Frag-Shield should be used on *ALL* drive partitions. After the initial use it will compute the correct size and should not have to be used again.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

And so we start again.

If your MFTs are not fully allocated, there will be no benefit to doing this.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

NO we do NOT start again.

Yes, there will, because they may become fully allocated if they are too small and then will not accept further allocation as readily.

End of story.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

Can you please provide your results for how padding the MFT that is not completely filled has increased performance.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

Mac:

I have an interesting test that I would appreciate if you could run it.

Download NTFSINFO from Sysinternals

Unzip it and then open a CMD window, CD to the installed folder and enter
NTFSINFO {one of your drive letters}

And then copy/paste the info back here.

In my case when I run the XP defrag > Analyse > view report, the percentage that it reports for MFT does *not* take into account the MFT zone.
So, when it says its at 90%, there is still another 12.5% of my partition sitting there in the MFT zone, waiting for the overflow.

Since the XP Defrag has a Diskeeper engine, I am interested to see what one of your volumes looks like after having it's MFT padded.

Has the original MFT been made larger with the zone still there?

Or something else.

Thanks


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

WhitPhil,

Can't tell you how tremendously refreshing it is to have someone continue to post that knows the theory behind what is going on, the practical application of that theory, and does more that be a mouth piece for a particular vendor's particular application. 

We all need that on a technical forum. 

Otherwise it degenerates into this unqualified dribble that has been going on.

Thanks for your technical excellence in continuing to try and find a true resolution to all the unfounded claims.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

NP.

The concept interests me from a technical point of view, and I am attempting to understand exactly what it is doing (or trying to do) with the MFT itself, and the zone.

And to determine what the Diskeeper terminology means when they talke about MFT fragmentation. IE: is it the MFT proper, the zone or a combination. 

The results from Mac on a padded MFT would help to see what is being done.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Not sure if you saw this latest thread:

http://forums.techguy.org/showthread.php?p=2363136#post2363136

"How about opening an MFT & Defrag forum for hardened tweakers."

After comments like:

"I don't think there is going to be a separate forum to discuss the master file system or defragging hard drives."

"I dont really think this is neccesary. "

and

"It is clear that the general consesus is NO. "

He totally back-pedaled as usually, tried to change and deflect his own suggestion with:
"You don't seem to realise that it is purely intended as a joke."

Fortunately no one really bought that one either.

It's too bad this forum has to continue to be subjected to all this stuff and has obviously been lessened in its quality by all this advertising posing as technical discussion.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

I've been following this running debate and am curious about something.

First, I am not a big user yet of the NTFS because most of my usage is on a 98se box, but the time will come when I start using newer equipment and a new os.
And then the issue of partitioning comes in. 
Ram Page suggested 4 to 7 partitions on a NTFS system and then altering the MFT zone.
Is it possible he inadvertintly configured the MFT ( in his case ) to a situation that needed adjustment because he had too many partitions? Because of their size?

When installing XP or 2K, is there a difference in the MFT zone size if the os is created in a smallish partition as to a large partition cut down to the same size, or does Windows automatically adjust to the situation, the same values?

How much 'room' (free space) does an install need in a NTFS partition as a minumum requirement? For performance aspects if there are any?


Thanks

Jack


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Jack,

Goods questions but we are still waiting to hear any specifics on this.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

I ran ntfsinfo. Here is a snap of the results. Sorry it took awhile.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

Thanks Scott.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Not a problem.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Interesting post from their site regarding the MFT:

"In order to protect the MFT from fragmentation, NTFS reserves a portion of the disk around the MFT that it will not allocate to other files "


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Might also want to read the last post:
http://forums.techguy.org/showthread.php?p=2365897#post2365897


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

Bob Cerelli said:


> Interesting post from their site regarding the MFT:
> 
> "In order to protect the MFT from fragmentation, NTFS reserves a portion of the disk around the MFT that it will not allocate to other files "


This is the "MFT Zone", which is 12.5 percent of the partition. But, even though it's intent is to protect, it is really to reduce fragmentation. But, since the zone is located near the MFT, the access time to any fragments is minimized.
And, if the partition becomes extremely full, NTFS will relent, and start allocating files within this zone.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

And that is exactly why I would like some independent data on how padding the MFT will increase performance.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

From Scott's posting, which is after running Diskeeper & MFT padding, it appears that the Zone is still 12% of the drive (at 9.3GBs) and the MFT is now 186MBs. 

So, with each entry being 1024 in size, the drive can hold a maximum of (approx) 186 thousand files before having to "overflow" and use the MFT zone.

Unfortunately, we didn't get a picture of how large the MFT was before, but it would seem that the "padding" is in fact increasing the MFT. So, as long as one keeps doing that, the MFT Zone will continue to be there, and will continue to be empty, but consuming prime real estate.

So, yes it's all together, but then it would be "relatively" together if it overflowed to the zone, since both are allocated side by side.

Anyway, no conclusions on performance. Just my observations.


----------



## Kloppstock (Jun 18, 2005)

1.
Im a newbie to explore the benief of page files
i need help configurating the right page file value on my hard drive

if you increase the paging files on a volyme, the disk space that are lost when becoming paging you can never get back without reformating the hardrive right?

i have a hardrive on 10 Gb where my system is placed C:
yesterday i analysed this drive with Diskeoper Pro and the result was Critical
i increased the paging file to maximum (to 1900 Mb on C unfortentley instead of the recomended value,maybea bit to mutch!!  

did not realaized then that i would accualy losst 1900 Mb from the drive. 
the message on C is now:
"The recomended paging file size of 2191 Mb is larger than 
the voymes currently used for paging file,its recomended that you create another page file on a larger volume"( and i used the maximum)

i have a another hardrive on 189 Gb(D, is that mean that if i create another page file on this larger volume, will this move the pagefile space that are to big on C: to D: instead, ore what do thei mean? if not is there no way to decrease that to big page file somehow?,a previous reg backup can this help, no

2.
Another thing related to this,after a complete defragmentation of C: when looking at the Performance Map it still have pink color(low performing system files) but the rest of this hard drive is really high peforming, 
then looking at the Drive Map i notice that the low performing files are the same as the all to big page files( yellow)? how do i get those files high performing again?

cause the defrag result still show "Critical" on C: even if there is no more files available for defragmentation

the recomendation for this volume is still to drive a boot-time defrag, wish i allready have done with both MTF and Page file defrag?

it allso still recomend to use Drive Shield to expand the page files, why? this is allready done? (with a little to mutch result.....) im afraid i will loose even moore hard drive space on C: cant afford loose any moore


as you may hear, i dont even understand the half of the things im writing about ? and practicaly it has gone as wrong as it could possible go 
so i world really apretiate if someone could tell me what i should to next

the main question must be something like this

why does it still showing C: as "critical" even after the measures i have done, and can i decrease the paging files on C: by creating another page file on another volume?


----------

