Why is file ASCservice_log.txt unmovable?

[neutrino]

After running Smart Defrag the report lists a 293K fragmented file named ASCservice_Log.txt. It is unmovable.

 

Should a text log file be unmovable?

[Toppack]

After running Smart Defrag the report lists a 293K fragmented file named ASCservice_Log.txt. It is unmovable.

 

Should a text log file be unmovable?

 

Did you look at it in 'File-manager'?

Is it requiring that need you need to be logged-in as 'Administrator'?

[solbjerg]

Hi neutrino

Is this where you found it?

http://forums.iobit.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10910&stc=1&d=1354141839

This report lists the files that have been defragmented.

I do not know if this file can't be moved from it place on the disk.

I suppose that even if it can't it may be possible to defragment it within it's place even though it probably has been in use recently or maybe even during defrag, but I do not know. How did you determine that it was immoveable?

As you can see the report says that total number of files were 108387

the fragmentation rate was 3,03% which translates to ~3285 files if the fragmentation rate is determined by the number of files.

The defragmented number of files are listed as 2384, which would lead me to suspect that about 900 files wasn't fragmented or were immovables or directories or Master File table files or files in use.

 

As I can see there are about 7 lines filled with coloured squares and about 5 lines that holds nothing - this would on the face of it lead one to suspect that the harddisk was about 56% full, but the screenshot shows that ~30 GB is free out of ~56GB capacity, which means that it in reality is about 46% full (26 out of 56)

That in turn means that there must be about 10% free space within the coloured squares.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

After running Smart Defrag the report lists a 293K fragmented file named ASCservice_Log.txt. It is unmovable.

 

Should a text log file be unmovable?

[neutrino]

Yes, that is where I found ASCservice_Log.txt, same file, same path. Except in my report it is the first file listed, has two fragments, and instead of "optimized" it says "unmovable".

 

Also, when I went back to double check the file is still unmovable, still has 2 fragments but size has grown to 426.58K.

 

From the report:

 

"Smart Defrag Report

=================================================

Application Version: 2.6.0.1162

Operating System: Windows XP

Report Created Time: 11/28/2012 19:03:45

 

=================================================

Name: ASCService_Log.txt

Fragments: 2

Size: 426.58 KB

Path: C:\Program Files\IObit\Advanced SystemCare 6\

Result: Unmovable

 

=================================================

Name: elemhide.css

Fragments: 1

Size: 1.16 MB

Path: C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Application Data\Thunderbird\Profiles\2p8bi7e1.default\adblockplus\

Result: Defragmented

 

================================================="

[neutrino]

Well OK, that was weird.

 

I renamed the unmovable ASCservice_Log.txt to ASCservice_Log.old and rebooted.

Ran Smart Defrag.

The new Smart Defrag report shows two files: the ".old" and ".txt". Both are now defragmented.

 

Weird. Whatever it was, it seems to be gone, at least for now. :smile:

[solbjerg]

hi neutrino

That screenshot showed the files that had been defragmented.

If this file showed that it was immovable my guess is then that it was in use when the defragmentation was taking place.

My file list just shows how I have ordered the list in order to try to find the file you mentioned as quickly as possible.

My next guess is that the file size will go down once you get it fragmented properly - but of course I do not know how you settings are,

My comparable file seems to be around 184 KB in size

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

Yes, that is where I found ASCservice_Log.txt, same file, same path. Except in my report it is the first file listed, has two fragments, and instead of "optimized" it says "unmovable".

 

Also, when I went back to double check the file is still unmovable, still has 2 fragments but size has grown to 426.58K.

 

From the report:

 

"Smart Defrag Report

=================================================

Application Version: 2.6.0.1162

Operating System: Windows XP

Report Created Time: 11/28/2012 19:03:45

 

=================================================

Name: ASCService_Log.txt

Fragments: 2

Size: 426.58 KB

Path: C:\Program Files\IObit\Advanced SystemCare 6\

Result: Unmovable

 

=================================================

Name: elemhide.css

Fragments: 1

Size: 1.16 MB

Path: C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Application Data\Thunderbird\Profiles\2p8bi7e1.default\adblockplus\

Result: Defragmented

 

================================================="

[neutrino]

"If this file showed that it was immovable my guess is then that it was in use when the defragmentation was taking place."

 

Exactly.

My original problem is fixed. The more general problem remains. Even after closing all other programs, and turning off automatic defrag etc I am still getting well over a hundred (I stopped counting) unmovable black blocks scatted about my hard drive. I'm sure this is happening to others all well.

 

It's too bad somebody at IObit (in his/her copiously free time- HA!) could code the boot defrag to not only defrag those files that Microsoft says must NEVER be moved but also the files that were actually not moved during the last Smart defrag merely because they just happened to be in use by another program/process at the time.

 

Perhaps IObit originally intended this to be the case. Why else offer the option to boot defrag on EVERY BOOT?

[Toppack]

Compressed files can not be defraged and are among the Unmovable blocks.

(such as Back-up files)

If you have 'File Compression' activated, for any normal files,

those will be Unmoveable also.

[solbjerg]

hi neutrino

"Well over a hundred black blocks" - well I just tried - by me it now showed around 40 - yesterday I think about 80 I guess.

I think around 50 would be normal by me.

Do you run a defrag with lots of programs open?

I think it would be very, very risky to run a defrag of programs in use.

The boot defrag will defrag those fragmented files that can't be defrag by a normal defrag.

It is a good idea to look at the report to find out what is being defragged if one is sufficiently interested.

Please also read Thinking about defragmentation (link in my signature)

Every file in use will create fragments, because the reading head will drop the information it carries where ever there is enough room So a boot defrag may defrag those files, but a short time later they will again be somewhat fragmented.

In my opinion one does not have to use the boot defrag very often.

The reason IObit gives the options it does is probably from user requests.

Cheers

solbjerg

p.s. A screenshot from you might be good.

 

"If this file showed that it was immovable my guess is then that it was in use when the defragmentation was taking place."

 

Exactly.

My original problem is fixed. The more general problem remains. Even after closing all other programs, and turning off automatic defrag etc I am still getting well over a hundred (I stopped counting) unmovable black blocks scatted about my hard drive. I'm sure this is happening to others all well.

 

It's too bad somebody at IObit (in his/her copiously free time- HA!) could code the boot defrag to not only defrag those files that Microsoft says must NEVER be moved but also the files that were actually not moved during the last Smart defrag merely because they just happened to be in use by another program/process at the time.

 

Perhaps IObit originally intended this to be the case. Why else offer the option to boot defrag on EVERY BOOT?

[Scannan]

Neutrino

 

It may be worthchecking the settings in SD wher you can opt to skip files above a certain size...this may also influence the count for unmovable files.

See attached printscreen.

[neutrino]

OK

 

After disconnecting from the internet, I:

unloaded MS SE

my firewall

custom set my pagefile to 2MB

with only 19 processes running

THIS was the result:

[Scannan]

Neutrino

 

I definitely think you should go into your SD settings and change the size of the files to be ignored. See my last post. I suggest taking it up to 10GB, then run SD again and analyze. See if there is any change,

 

 

EDIT: Ignoring the large files will leave them as they are, so contrary to that, the checkbox should be unchecked.

[enoskype]

Hi neutrino,

 

1) I would uncheck the checkbox of "Skip files larger than 2 GB" option as Scannan shows in his attachment.

2) I would only leave 1 System Restore point (Newly created to be on the safe side)

 

Then try to defrag.

 

Please note that in XP minimum 12.5% of your hard drive will be spared for Reserve of MFT enlargement.

 

 

OK guys, a hint for you all who have XP.

 

Download PD free 12.5 from HERE, use it for smart placement, and then offline defrag, you will have only enough MFT zone.

(PD Free works in Vista and Win8 too.)

If you use SD after installing PD, then offline defrag of PD will only work untill you repair it from it's setup file.

 

When you are finished with PD Free, you can revert back to SD 2.6.

 

Cheers.

[neutrino]

I increased the file ignore size to 10GB. It was well worth a shot but no joy. the DefragReport.txt reported a total 33 files were defragged and optomized , the largest of which was 12.76 MB.

 

Is there anyplace that logs the file names and sizes of the unmoveable files?

 

EDIT: Please see the EDIT: part of post #12 and whole post #13

[Scannan]

Neutrino

 

Forgive me for asking, but why are you worried about the unmovable files. With the amount of free space on your drive I really do not think the unmovable files are affecting your performance.

[solbjerg]

Hi neutrino

From where came this supposition???:

"It's too bad somebody at IObit (in his/her copiously free time- HA!) could code the boot defrag to not only defrag those files that Microsoft says must NEVER be moved but also the files that were actually not moved during the last Smart defrag merely because they just happened to be in use by another program/process at the time."

 

I think there must have been something you must have mísunderstood :-)

Possibly something I have written hasn't been clearly explained - if so I am sorry.

Cheers

solbjerg

p.s. as enoskype suggested the removal of some restore points in Windows System Retore may well remove some of the black blocks from your SD main window.

I will also say that it is not necessarily a bad thing to have many black boxes - it is merily information about your current status.

[enoskype]

Hi Scannan, you are right, but I wouldn't accept my HD occupied by scattered unmovable files as in the image of neutrino.

After all, IMHO, the whole purpose of defragging is to have better performance of the HD for I/O and more contiguous free space. 8:)

 

Cheers.

[Scannan]

I agree completely, but if the system is identifying them as immovable, it is dangerous to mess with them. Really the only way around it is to clean out the junk, remove unused programs and ensure that old fragments are removed. Browser addons and plugins are notorious for propogating files and classifying them as immovable. Malware also is a culprit.

I think that once you have done as much cleanup as possible, that it is then best to accept the immovable files that remain.

[neutrino]

Two replies:

 

Scannan raises a good point. My system IS faster and I SHOULD be well satisfied by that fact. In the end, I may well need to be satisfied by that. It just seems...untidy - all those unexplained black squares strewn about on my hard drive like it's getting anthrax or something. :shock:

 

solbjerg, it is my understanding that the only files marked as unmovable are the ones in use during the defrag, and the MFT, the two Pagefiles, and 11 system files themselves. I can see the later 3 items defragged during the boot defrag but not any others. I also noted that during the original problem, when ASCservice_Log.txt was marked unmovable it was also marked system. Hence my supposition that files in use were being marked as system but not defragged upon boot defrag.

 

On the drive map the MFT is clearly marked, the size of the two pagefile files have been minimized as have the number of files in use by eliminating almost all processes. Yet the problem remains.

 

BTW, the System Restore is turned off with the the root system volume info folder empty.

 

Edit: yes "ordnung muss sein!" is a very common attitude :-)

If you look at the boot time defrag report you may find what other files wasn't defragged during a previous normal defrag.

[solbjerg]

hi Scannan

Wise remarks!

When enoskype says PD I think he is referring to Perfect Disk - a very good defragmenter (not free)

In PD I think you can change the location of the immovable files to some extent.

So if you download it for it's trial period you can perhaps change the configuration of the black boxes - it will then stay almost like that for a very long time.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

I agree completely, but if the system is identifying them as immovable, it is dangerous to mess with them. Really the only way around it is to clean out the junk, remove unused programs and ensure that old fragments are removed. Browser addons and plugins are notorious for propogating files and classifying them as immovable. Malware also is a culprit.

I think that once you have done as much cleanup as possible, that it is then best to accept the immovable files that remain.

[enoskype]

OK.

 

@neutrino,

I still didn't get any response for unchecking of file ignoring when defragmenting.

 

@Scannan,

The cause that the system is identifying them unmovable, is the configuration the user is using.

 

Apart from bootstat.dat file, moving of the other files is possible without any ill effect if the moving is done safely. (Except MBR ofcourse). (Master Boot Record)

 

What I am saying is that, in XP, keeping the running processes to minimum (certainly closing all browsers) and addition of a boottime defrag, all the files can be contiguous with maximum contiguous free space. Please see the attachments in HERE.

 

Also I am saying that in XP, 12.5% of the total HD size allocation to MFT enlargement is extreme waste of valuable speedy space in HD and unless small amount of free space is left, what is the use of the enlargement space being apart from MFT which will cause fragmentation of MFT if MFT gets larger and uses some part of MFT reserve zone.

Sorry, but I would not accept most of the remaining unmovable files. :twisted: (Exceptions doesn't change the rule.)

I am on Win8 now, I will attach screenshots of my XPs (defragmented HDs) when I change this laptop.

 

@solbjerg,

The link I have given is for FREE PerfectDisk (Not the paid one, no trial period. Released about 6 months ago. It is stripped version of the latest PD Pro. Not very many people are aware of the existence of it. Check the download #s please.)

 

Thanks enoskype - I will try it out! Cheers solbjerg

 

Cheers to all.

[enoskype]

Also, trying Contig & Power Defragmenter GUI at THIS post will not give any harm, after all, contig.exe is from Sysinternals (MS). This is valid for XP only.

If you decide to use, please use the most recent contig.exe version 1.7.

 

Cheers.

[Scannan]

Enoskype

 

I agree with everything you say, and indeed the ideal would be to have a minimum of immovable files on the disc.

However, identifying the immovable files is problematic (I am not familiar with perfectDisc, so I do not know if it has the ability to identify the immovable files)

 

I just think that, sometimes the pursuit of absolute perfection can of itself create imperfection. When excessive time is devoted to achieving a negligible gain, then the whole task becomes innefficient. By all means, if Neutrino, has the time and inclination to identify the files and correct them, then he should do so, but if his machine is running well and he does not have an issue with acces times and response, then is it of any benefit to devote time and resources for a negligible gain.

 

I thank you for your link, it is a very detailed and helpful article. I have quite a few immovable files myself and I must admit that SD 2.4/2.5/2.6 seems to find a lot more of them than previous versions...I have long thought that there is something not quite right with the Analysis protocols. However, I find absolutely no negative impact on my machine, and so decided to accept it for now, rather than excessively defrag the drive in an attempt to obtain perfection.....:wink:

[enoskype]

Hi Scannan,

 

Your post reminded me "In search of excellence we miss a lot of good things" :grin:

 

How about ASC? What is the fine optimization it is seeking for? :lol::lol::lol:

 

Sorry guys, I am a bit off topic. :oops:

 

Cheers.

[Scannan]

Enoskype

 

This is an excellent article, very pertinent to what we are discussing. I think you would find it interesting.

 

As for ASC,...I like it. I think it has taken the fear and confusion out of the necessary pc utilities, for the general user, while at the same time acknowledgeing that there is still work to be done. I do think it is a very educational tool for non techy users.

However, I also think that many users begin to use it circumspectly, and as they become familiar with it they begin to pursue this elusive perfection, possibly to an extreme...http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-computer005.gif

 

EDIT: Thanks for th link Scannan, interesting.