Diskeeper tells me I'm outta disk space

[Goi]

Hi guys,
I have a Hitachi/IBM 180GXP 82.3GB HDD(76.6GB NTFS formatted) and around 64GB is used for storing backup audio/video clips and movies. I therefore have around 12GB free, but whenever I run Diskeeper, it tells me only 2% of the total volume space is available for defragmentation, even though it also tells me that I have 15% free space on this HDD. I look at the disk map on Diskeeper and a lot of the empty space is actually "Reserved system space". Why is that so? This HDD is a backup HDD, used for storing purely data files only, I have another WD1200JB for everything else, including my OS partition, so why would there be ~13% of the this drive(or ~10GB) reserved system space?

 

[Goi]

bump

 

[Zucarita9000]

In NTFS, a large portion of the drive is used for the MFT (Master File Table). This space is reserved and cannot be used by anything else. You might want to move some GBs to another drive, defrag and move them back in.

Try upgrading to Diskeeper 2º Edition (Free) and updating to build 430 and see if that helps.

 

[Goi]

I realize some space is sometimes reserved for system usage, but doesn't 13% of a 82.3GB HDD sound excessive to you, especially when its not even the OS partition? That's around 10GB of space just wasted right there. I don't have this problem with my other HDD partitions.

btw I'm already using Diskeeper Workstation for Windows 7.0.430.0, which I believe is the latest version.

 

[Zucarita9000]

It is excessive. the MFT doesn't reserve space on a GB basis, it does so on a percentage basis. I have a 14GB NTFS partition in my system wich is empty. However, Windows reports that 160MB are used. So there you have it. NTFS has some pros and cons.

 

[Goi]

160MB vs 10GB is a huge difference if you ask me. Is there anyway to get rid of this? It only happened recently anyway, before this I Diskeeper was reporting sane values of HDD usage, now its pretty ridiculous.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Goi
160MB vs 10GB is a huge difference if you ask me. Is there anyway to get rid of this? It only happened recently anyway, before this I Diskeeper was reporting sane values of HDD usage, now its pretty ridiculous.

NTFS stores files (where possible) directly into the MFT if the file size is smaller than the record slack space. This means if you have alot of small files your MFT will be larger than you might expect.

Bill

 

[Goi]

Thanks Bill. That's weird though because that HDD is full of huge movie files that are hundreds of MB large.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Goi
Thanks Bill. That's weird though because that HDD is full of huge movie files that are hundreds of MB large.

Was there a time when it was full of smaller files? (Once the MFT grows it does not shrink)
Bill

 

[Goi]

Nope. I just bought this HDD recently, and then transferred my movie files from my old HDD over to this one. They're all pretty large, at least a few MB to hundreds of MB. The entire HDD is formatted to one huge NTFS partition too. Also, the problem just recently occured(couldn't have been much more than a week). Before this Diskeeper was analyzing it fine.

 

[corkyg]

The MFT reserved area is about the same size as the total actual data area. It does deal in a percentage. This is one reason I switched from Diskeeper to PerfectDisk 6.0 (Raxco). It uses "Smart Placement" in defrag with NTFS and MFT, and you graphically can see the area reserved for MFT use. It is significantly large. When this area butts up against regular files, it then will cause fragmentation because it forces files to then straddle the MFT area.

Chances are you really do not have enough space to defrag NTFS if you have 60 GB on a 80 GB drive.

 

[Goi]

Thanks corky-g, so you're saying PerfectDisk is the better defragger and will circumvent this problem?

I'm just wondering why this problem would appear suddenly, and why this isn't affecting any of my other partitions on my other HDD, all of which are NTFS formatted.

 

[corkyg]

No, although I like P/D better, the problem will still exist. You will simply be able to see it visually. With NTFS you really can't use but about 70% of the HDD space. You must keep enough "freeboard" for it to operate.

 

[Goi]

I know about the problems of NTFS, but as I've said, the problem was recent. I've once used up almost all of my 60GB partition from my other HDD, which was what prompted me to get this new HDD. Even at that time, I didn't have any problems with Diskeeper telling me that a certain amount of space is reserved for system usage only. Moreover, if this is true, and around 10-15% of any partition is always reserved for system use, shouldn't I be informed that this is the case for my other 3 partitions as well? Why is this problem isolated to this particular HDD only? That is my concern. My E: (3rd partition in HDD1) currently has only ~10-15GB left out of its 60GB capacity, and Diskeeper still informs me that all this free space is available for defragmentation, so I really don't see why this is the case for my H: (HDD2, the HDD in question).

 

[Goi]

I found a page here that seems to detail the same problem I have, almost to the dot. The response from ExecSoft's tech support indicate that 12.5% of the volume is reserved for MFT space, but not neccessarily used. I've verified this by viewing the analysis report that only 2+MB was used for the MFT, and that I indeed have ~12.5% of the volume indicated as being reserved for system use.

However the tech support also seemed to claim that this issue only occurs when a volume is converted from FAT to NTFS. This is not the case here since I'm pretty sure I formatted it as NTFS from the get go...

 

[corkyg]

Used and reserved are two different things. The actual used MFT area is quite small, but the reserved area is a function of the size of all your cumulative stored data. Disagree with the difference in whether or not the NTFS was converted from FAT32 or original. The end result is the same. The reserved area is not usable by the defragger or the system. It is like "off limits."

BTW - I am currently using 5 of the exact same drive you cited. They are solid performers and fast.

 

[Goi]

Thanks corky-g. Those responses are apparently direct from ExecSoft, so they should be legit. And yes its an incredibly fast drive for the money...even faster than my WD1200JB. Still find it weird that only this drive is affected and not the others but I guess I'll learn to live with it, or reformat