[comp.sys.atari.st.tech] Defragger

twmanino@ncsuvx.enet.dec.com (TONY W MANINO) (02/07/91)

Hello tech-types,

I (and several others who have e-mailed me) am in need of a hard disk
defragmentation utility.  I have an ICD host adapter, TOS 1.4, and am
using 32 meg partitions.  I understand that there are older utilities 
that will not work in this situation.

Is there such an animal that will work reliably with this configuration?
PD/Shareware/Commercial - I would like to know about any.


Thanks folks,
Tony
twmanino@eos.ncsu.edu

gjh@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Graham Higgins) (02/08/91)

Ditto.

Graham
======

------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Higgins             	|  Phone: (0272) 799910 x 24060
Hewlett-Packard Labs    	|  gjh%ghiggins@hpl.hp.co.uk
Bristol                       	|  gjh%ghiggins@hplb.hpl.hp.com
U.K.                          	|  
------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My opinions above are exactly that, mine and opinions.
------------------------------------------------------------------

pegram@kira.UUCP (Robert B. Pegram) (02/09/91)

From article <1991Feb7.090026@ncsuvx.enet.dec.com>, by twmanino@ncsuvx.enet.dec.com (TONY W MANINO):
> Hello tech-types,
> 
> I (and several others who have e-mailed me) am in need of a hard disk
> defragmentation utility.  I have an ICD host adapter, TOS 1.4, and am
> using 32 meg partitions.  I understand that there are older utilities 
> that will not work in this situation.
> 
> Is there such an animal that will work reliably with this configuration?
> PD/Shareware/Commercial - I would like to know about any.
> 
> 
> Thanks folks,
> Tony
> twmanino@eos.ncsu.edu

I thought Dave Beckemeyer would answer this 8-).  Get his Hard Disk Sentry
program it should work on larger partitions (I hope so, I keep meaning
to buy it).  Dave said it would do that himself here on the net some 
while back.  I could dig up my copy of the posting if necessary.

ciao,

Bob Pegram

pegram@griffin.uvm.edu
	or
...!uvm-gen!pegram

bammi@acae127.cadence.com (Jwahar R. Bammi) (02/12/91)

> I (and several others who have e-mailed me) am in need of a hard disk
> defragmentation utility.  I have an ICD host adapter, TOS 1.4, and am

i seem to remember trying one from atari called chkdsk or something
like that. it was slower than molasses, and the user interface really
sucked. i would stay away from that one. i wish the author of tuneup
would fix his util for large partitions. sans that problem, i have
used it for many years with great success.

i think beckmeyer had something along the same lines too.
--
bang:   uunet!cadence!bammi			jwahar r. bammi
domain: bammi@cadence.com
GEnie:	J.Bammi
CIS:    71515,155

david@bdt.COM (David Beckemeyer) (02/12/91)

Yes.  HD Sentry will work with larger partions, even using the "logical
block" scheme that HDX 3.x (and now 4.x for the TT) use.

It is a commercial program with a sugg. retail price of $49.95.  It
is in distribution and should be available at a loval store or mail-order
house.  It can also be ordered directly from Beckemeyer Development
by calling (415) 530-9637 on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday betwen 10AM
and 5PM Pacific time.  You can also call the BBS at (415) 530-9682.

-- 
David Beckemeyer (david@bdt.COM)	| "Beer!  Now there's a temporary 
Beckemeyer Development Tools		|  solution."  -- Homer Simpson

Roger.Sheppard@bbs.actrix.gen.nz (02/12/91)

In article <BAMMI.91Feb11140033@acae127.cadence.com> bammi@acae127.cadence.com (Jwahar R. Bammi) writes:
> i seem to remember trying one from atari called chkdsk or something
> like that. it was slower than molasses, and the user interface really
> sucked. i would stay away from that one. i wish the author of tuneup
> would fix his util for large partitions. sans that problem, i have
> used it for many years with great success.
> 
> i think beckmeyer had something along the same lines too.
> --
> bang:   uunet!cadence!bammi			jwahar r. bammi

Note ; CHKDSK3 is not for general release as its for Developers only,
but I would like to know more about Molasses, Have not heard about that
one, I do have 2 German ones but they don't do 32meg partitions, but
one of these lets you set your R/W options and some otheres, but can't
decypher the German, it gives you full report on the files that its working
on, the R/W option lets you set which files you wan't at the front,
(read) and which ones at the back (write), but there  is another option
that I can't work out, I don't know if its PD, as there is no copyright
notice from what I can see..
-- 
Roger W. Sheppard   85 Donovan Rd, Kapiti New Zealand...

stigvi@Lise.Unit.NO (Stig Vidar Hovland) (02/12/91)

In article <BAMMI.91Feb11140033@acae127.cadence.com>, bammi@acae127.cadence.com (Jwahar R. Bammi) writes: 
|> i seem to remember trying one from atari called chkdsk or something
|> like that. it was slower than molasses, and the user interface really
|> sucked. i would stay away from that one. i wish the author of tuneup
|> would fix his util for large partitions. sans that problem, i have
|> used it for many years with great success.

Chkdsk3 is not that bad. It is fast and can handle partitions > 16MB.

Stig Vidar Hovland

dclemans@mentorg.com (Dave Clemans @ APD x1292) (02/16/91)

bammi@acae127.cadence.com (Jwahar R. Bammi) writes:
> > I (and several others who have e-mailed me) am in need of a hard disk
> > defragmentation utility.  I have an ICD host adapter, TOS 1.4, and am
> 
> i seem to remember trying one from atari called chkdsk or something
> like that. it was slower than molasses, and the user interface really
> sucked. i would stay away from that one. i wish the author of tuneup
> would fix his util for large partitions. sans that problem, i have
> used it for many years with great success.
> 
> i think beckmeyer had something along the same lines too.

I'm the author of Tuneup, such as it is.  (Though not of its documentation.)
A version does exist that should handle "big" partitions, though it's never
gotten any testing (that I know of) beyond local people.  It was sent many 
months ago to Michtron for more general testing & release, but I've haven't
heard anything since then.

I also have no idea as to what its current status is since the
sale of Michtron to that New Jersey firm.  As I said above, I haven't
heard anything from Michtron/etc. in many months.  I don't even know
how to contact the New Jersey company that supposedly bought Michtron.

If it was definitely clear that I legally could do so, I would be
willing to give "special" updates (with the understanding that this
version has not been as extensively tested as previous versions.)
However I will not spend any money to get such a legal clarification.

dgc

pegram@kira.UUCP (Robert B. Pegram) (02/22/91)

From article <1991Feb15.231336.4325@mentorg.com>, by 
dclemans@mentorg.com (Dave Clemans @ APD x1292):

> bammi@acae127.cadence.com (Jwahar R. Bammi) writes:
>> > I (and several others who have e-mailed me) am in need of a hard disk
>> > defragmentation utility.  I have an ICD host adapter, TOS 1.4, and am
>> 
>> i seem to remember trying one from atari called chkdsk or something
>> like that. it was slower than molasses, and the user interface really
>> sucked. i would stay away from that one. i wish the author of tuneup
>> would fix his util for large partitions. sans that problem, i have
>> used it for many years with great success.
>> 
>> i think beckmeyer had something along the same lines too.
> 
> I'm the author of Tuneup, such as it is.  (Though not of its documentation.)

The worst part 8-).

> A version does exist that should handle "big" partitions, though it's never
> gotten any testing (that I know of) beyond local people.  It was sent many 
> months ago to Michtron for more general testing & release, but I've haven't
> heard anything since then.
 
> I also have no idea as to what its current status is since the
> sale of Michtron to that New Jersey firm.  As I said above, I haven't
> heard anything from Michtron/etc. in many months.  I don't even know
> how to contact the New Jersey company that supposedly bought Michtron.

Sorry to hear about that.
 
> If it was definitely clear that I legally could do so, I would be
> willing to give "special" updates (with the understanding that this
> version has not been as extensively tested as previous versions.)
> However I will not spend any money to get such a legal clarification.
 
> dgc

If you can give patches or end up having somebody selling (and
upgrading old versions, I hope 8-) please fix two more things.  

1. Write the fats and directories asap (as you move the files) instead
of at the end of everything - PC defraggers do that and can be stopped
in the middle of things and lose nothing, or have a blackout and only
lose 1 file - which a utility can sometimes recover.  The time saved
in doing it the old way (1st move all files, then write fats and then
directories) is not worth the agony IMHO (and is not so slow on the PCs
either, in my experience 8-).

2. Run a spell checker on the strings in your code 8-).  I'm tired of
reading that such and such a file is now "contigous" ("contiguous" is
the correct spelling 8-).

Good luck, (for all of us, if you can swing distributing the fixes 8-).

Bob Pegram

pegram@griffin.uvm.edu
	or
...!uvm-gen!pegram

vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) (02/23/91)

In article <1991Feb21.191927.6628@uvm.edu> pegram@kira.UUCP (Robert B. Pegram) writes:
>From article <1991Feb15.231336.4325@mentorg.com>, by 
>dclemans@mentorg.com (Dave Clemans @ APD x1292):
>1. Write the fats and directories asap (as you move the files) instead
>of at the end of everything - PC defraggers do that and can be stopped
>in the middle of things and lose nothing...

I suggested to Norton that they modify SD to write files temporarily into the
HIGHEST numbered free cluster instead of the LOWEST numbered free cluster.
The effect of stashing a file in the LOWEST numbered free cluster is that it
gets moved over and over and over and over and over ... again.  Stashing it
in the HIGHEST numbered free cluster increases head motion, but reduces the
probability it'll have to be moved again before being moved to its final
resting place.  Overall, it should make the de-fragger substantially faster.

I hope to see a de-fragger of the kind desired by Pegram, with the above
modification to the algorithm.

Van.

-- 
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp