own@castle.ed.ac.uk (O Morgan) (05/25/91)
Some time ago there was some talk (panic) about large chunks of some
peoples hard disks being highlighted as "unmoveable" when trying to
unfragment the disk with Norton Speed disk. Did anyone ever figure why
this happens? At the time people thought it was a Windows shareware
utility, though I think this was later disproved. Though I have no
clear idea why this is happening, I suspect it has something to do with
Windows 3.
I'm only asking because I just did an SD, and virtually the whole of my
hard disk is marked as "unmoveable blocks", which isn't very reassuring.
Does anyone know why this happens (I thought only hidden and system
files where unmoveable) and how to cure the problem?
Olly Morgan
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olly Morgan @ Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh EH9 2HH, Scotland
Tel: (+44 31) 662 4395 E.Mail: O.Morgan@ed.ac.uk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------Conrad.Bullock@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Conrad Bullock) (05/26/91)
In article <10545@castle.ed.ac.uk>, own@castle.ed.ac.uk (O Morgan) writes: |> Some time ago there was some talk (panic) about large chunks of some |> peoples hard disks being highlighted as "unmoveable" when trying to |> unfragment the disk with Norton Speed disk. Did anyone ever figure why |> this happens? At the time people thought it was a Windows shareware |> utility, though I think this was later disproved. Though I have no |> clear idea why this is happening, I suspect it has something to do with |> Windows 3. |> |> Does anyone know why this happens (I thought only hidden and system |> files where unmoveable) and how to cure the problem? Norton's SD also marks as unmovable any free unlinked chains. Try running CHKDSK /F (or NDD) before you run SD. -- Conrad Bullock | Domain: conrad@comp.vuw.ac.nz Victoria University of Wellington, | or: conrad@cavebbs.gen.nz New Zealand. | Fidonet: 3:771/130 | BBS: The Cave BBS +64 4 643429
ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au (mr k.l. lentin) (05/26/91)
In article <10545@castle.ed.ac.uk> own@castle.ed.ac.uk (O Morgan) writes: >Some time ago there was some talk (panic) about large chunks of some >peoples hard disks being highlighted as "unmoveable" when trying to >unfragment the disk with Norton Speed disk. Did anyone ever figure why >this happens? At the time people thought it was a Windows shareware >utility, though I think this was later disproved. Though I have no >clear idea why this is happening, I suspect it has something to do with >Windows 3. > >I'm only asking because I just did an SD, and virtually the whole of my >hard disk is marked as "unmoveable blocks", which isn't very reassuring. > >Does anyone know why this happens (I thought only hidden and system >files where unmoveable) and how to cure the problem? > What you're saying sounds right. Only hidden and system (and read only maybe) files are unmovable PLUS any others you tell norton are unmovable. Theres an option On the menu to display unmovable files. You may find some surprises in there! Another point is that you cuold have 1 large unmovable file that is very fragmented and norton will show each block that the file resides in as unmovable when in fact it will move part of that block. When displaying the screen, an unmovable cluster takes prefernece over an unused or used cluster in the same block. |/ |\evin
fisher@sc2a.unige.ch (05/28/91)
In article <10545@castle.ed.ac.uk>, own@castle.ed.ac.uk (O Morgan) writes: > Some time ago there was some talk (panic) about large chunks of some > peoples hard disks being highlighted as "unmoveable" when trying to > unfragment the disk with Norton Speed disk. [...] Some executables with "strange" formats are also marked as unmovable. I noticed this with the self-extracting LHarc version 1.13c (1989), which could be moved only when renamed to another extention. Do windows executables have an unusual structure, which is not recognized by earlier versions of Norton's SD?
G22QC@CUNYVM.BITNET (05/29/91)
I suggest that you should run CHKDSK to check if there are any hidden, read-only, or system files corresponding the drive that contains "unmoveble blocks". If there are indeed existing hidden, read-only, or system file(s), just change the attribute, and run Speed Disk again. "Unmoveble blocks" then become "moveble blocks". Forget about this if the above doesn't appeal to your case. Good luck. Eddie Wu
mjf@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Michael J Flory) (05/29/91)
As I recall, Norton Speed Disk (quite properly) marks a permanent swapfile as unmovable. Unless you have a HUGE swapfile this wouldn't explain why almost yr whole disk was unmovable, but it could be part of it. You didn't try to run SD WITHIN Windows, did you??? (That could have very undesirable results, I understand...) Michael Flory (mjf@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu)
jcohen@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU (Josh Cohen [890918]) (05/29/91)
keep in mind also, that the Windows Permanent Swap File is unmoveable.. so you will see a (huge) block of contigous nonmoveable space... jcohen@scarecrow.csee.lehigh.edu
jta@locus.com (JT Anderson) (05/29/91)
I don't know if this is true for the current version of Norton Speed Disk, but it used to think that the Windows program MSDOS.EXE was an unmoveable file. (MSDOS.EXE is the MS-DOS Executive for Windows 1.x and 2.x. It is included with Windows 3, but rarely used.)
dlm@hermes.dlogics.com (05/29/91)
In article <10545@castle.ed.ac.uk>, own@castle.ed.ac.uk (O Morgan) writes: > ...I'm only asking because I just did an SD, and virtually the whole of my > hard disk is marked as "unmoveable blocks", which isn't very reassuring. > > Does anyone know why this happens (I thought only hidden and system > files where unmoveable) and how to cure the problem? > > Olly Morgan > -- This just happened to me last nite: 1.2 megabytes of unmovable clusters. so i ran NDD (the disk doctor) who said that i had an unlinked chain. this can happen if you boot or otherwise abort a lengthy file operation. it must have occurred while i was unpacking a damaged .ARC library; ARCE went nuts so i booted. NDD created a filename for the chain, which i then deleted. -- Dave Mausner, Sr Tech Consultant / Datalogics Inc / Chicago IL / 312-266-4450 dlm@hermes.dlogics.com "Don't talk about it -- just show me the code!"
rodrigol@ulrik.uio.no (Rodrigo Lopez) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May28.140354.446@sc2a.unige.ch>, fisher@sc2a.unige.ch writes: > In article <10545@castle.ed.ac.uk>, own@castle.ed.ac.uk (O Morgan) writes: > > Some time ago there was some talk (panic) about large chunks of some > > peoples hard disks being highlighted as "unmoveable" when trying to > > unfragment the disk with Norton Speed disk. [...] > > Some executables with "strange" formats are also marked as unmovable. I > noticed this with the self-extracting LHarc version 1.13c (1989), which > could be moved only when renamed to another extention. > > Do windows executables have an unusual structure, which is not recognized by > earlier versions of Norton's SD? If you are running windows 3.0 in 386 enh mode you are probably using a swap disk and more likely, this one is PERMANENT. This means its unmovable and NU SD will identify it as such. A good idea is to get rid of this permanent swap file before optimizing the disk. Then, after optimalization, re-create it. ************************************************************************ **** * RODRIGO LOPEZ SERRANO Biotechnology Centre of Oslo * * Tel: xx-02-958766 Gaustadalleen 21 * * Fax: xx-02-694130 P.B. 1125 Blindern * * 0316 Oslo 3 Norway * * rodrigol@biomed.uio.no * * rodrigol@ulrik.uio.no * ************************************************************************ ****
andyross@infopls.chi.il.us (Andrew Rossmann) (05/31/91)
mjf@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Michael J Flory) writes: > > As I recall, Norton Speed Disk (quite properly) marks a permanent swapfile > as unmovable. Unless you have a HUGE swapfile this wouldn't explain why > almost yr whole disk was unmovable, but it could be part of it. You didn't > try to run SD WITHIN Windows, did you??? (That could have very undesirable > results, I understand...) > With version 5.0 of SpeedDisk, there is a 'Walk Map' option. If you have a mouse, just click on the block you want to look at, and a small window will pop up, showing what files belong to all of the clusters that block represents. It also tells you if it's fragmented, unfragmented, or unmovable. If you don't have a mouse, pick the 'Walk Map' option in the Information menu. You then use the arrow keys to move around, and hit ENTER to display the information. --------------- Andrew Rossmann | Sysop of Infoplus BBS, +1 708 537 0247 andyross@infopls.chi.il.us | Infoplus Support, latest version available uunet!ddsw1!infopls!andyross | by logging in as infoplus.
feustel@netcom.COM (David Feustel) (05/31/91)
I just xcopy the disk to another disk, reformat the source disk, and copy back whenever the cause of the block's being immovable is not determinable. This always gets rid of the unmovable blocks. -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631 EMAIL: feustel@netcom.com or feustel@cvax.ipfw.indiana.edu
mpython@wpi.WPI.EDU (... and the flying circus) (06/05/91)
In article <1991May28.140354.446@sc2a.unige.ch> fisher@sc2a.unige.ch writes: >In article <10545@castle.ed.ac.uk>, own@castle.ed.ac.uk (O Morgan) writes: >> Some time ago there was some talk (panic) about large chunks of some >> peoples hard disks being highlighted as "unmoveable" when trying to >> unfragment the disk with Norton Speed disk. [...] > >Some executables with "strange" formats are also marked as unmovable. I >noticed this with the self-extracting LHarc version 1.13c (1989), which >could be moved only when renamed to another extention. > Today,my roommate was running Speed Disk, and I noticed 2 immovable block right in the middle of his disk. They were hidden files, so we changed them to un-hidden, and they became movable again... did the original poster have a HUGE portion of his disk Hidden? -- ************ And now...Marcel Marceau will mime * 1 6 * A man being struck about the head by a 16 ton weight * T O N S * Chaos: 1 Dinosaurs: 0 ****************** I-net: MPYTHON@wpi.WPI.edu |there is NO rule #6
raymond@math.berkeley.edu (Raymond Chen) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun4.233518.20269@wpi.WPI.EDU>, mpython@wpi (... and the flying circus) writes: >did the original poster have a HUGE portion of his disk Hidden? Actually, it seems that Norton not only refuses to move hidden files, but also refuses to move anything that lives inside a hidden directory. (This is the Right Thing, since hidden files and hidden directories might be part of copy protection schemes; actually, hidden directories are officially illegal under MS-DOS, though they seem to work okay.)
campbell@cutmcvax.cs.curtin.edu.au (Trevor George Campbell CC361) (06/07/91)
mjf@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Michael J Flory) writes: >As I recall, Norton Speed Disk (quite properly) marks a permanent swapfile >as unmovable. Unless you have a HUGE swapfile this wouldn't explain why >almost yr whole disk was unmovable, but it could be part of it. You didn't >try to run SD WITHIN Windows, did you??? (That could have very undesirable >results, I understand...) From my understanding of the windows manual, windows will only use (at most) half of the free space on a disk for a permenent swapfile. And further, that space must be continuous (or is that contiguous) ie: in one huge block, and not fragmented. I would support the idea of system/hidden files somewhere on the disk, as the only time i have seen many (ie: more than about 2-3) unmovable blocks it has been due to system/hidden files. -- Trevor alias <**<TOMCAT>**> tuo em tel esaelP ,lanimret siht edisni kcuts m`I pleH ( for all of you out there who can't read backwards..... Help i'm stuck inside this terminal, Please let me out )
poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (06/11/91)
In article <campbell.676283741@cutmcvax> campbell@cutmcvax.cs.curtin.edu.au (Trevor George Campbell CC361) writes: >mjf@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Michael J Flory) writes: > > >>As I recall, Norton Speed Disk (quite properly) marks a permanent swapfile >>as unmovable. Unless you have a HUGE swapfile this wouldn't explain why >>almost yr whole disk was unmovable, but it could be part of it. You didn't >>try to run SD WITHIN Windows, did you??? (That could have very undesirable >>results, I understand...) > >From my understanding of the windows manual, windows will only use (at most) >half of the free space on a disk for a permenent swapfile. And further, that >space must be continuous (or is that contiguous) ie: in one huge block, and >not fragmented. I would support the idea of system/hidden files somewhere >on the disk, as the only time i have seen many (ie: more than about 2-3) >unmovable blocks it has been due to system/hidden files. > I don't think so. I have a 320Mb SCSI disk partitioned into many 32Mb ones (So I use DOS 3.3, so sue me :-), with the last being a runt of 20Mb or so. I have` the ENTIRE partition allocated as a permanent swap file. I think that when setting it up, windows SUGGESTS a file size equal to half the current free space, but it doesn't prevent you from entering whatever number you want. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254