spacewalker0720 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I downloaded the new version today 2.01.239. After it completed defragging, it said that it had Zero fragmented files. Yet I saw 5 individual Blue Blocks. It's possible those are single files so I clicked them one at a time to see what was in them. 2 of the 5 Blue Blocks don't show any files, just a pop up tip that says "No files are in the block." Well, if the block is empty, then why is it blue? Picture attached. Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators DennisD Posted January 25, 2011 Moderators Share Posted January 25, 2011 Hi spacewalker, and welcome to Piriform. It's hard to tell with different monitors etc, but they look to be Light Blue in colour: Hope that helps. EDIT: Forget to mention that I believe "Low Occupancy" means too small to be able to do anything with. Not 100% on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethec Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 This is a very old bug...it seems they haven't found a way to fix it Piriform French translator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragmaster Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 My \C drive has over a hundred of these "no file in block" blocks (hereafter reffered to as ghost blocks). Ghost blocks seem to be keeping me from writing large files to the drive without chopping them up into several fragments. (which isn't really a big deal, but it's annoying ) ghost blocks do not respond to "defrag freespace". Are these ghost blocks truly empty? Will my computer write over them without any issues? Or are they impacting my drive's writing performance? Most importantly, are they impacting Defraggler's performance? Also, does Defraggler know that these blocks are actually empty? Will it write over them during "defrag drive"? Example: If I told defraggler to "move large files to end of drive" and there were several of these ghost blocks at short intervals near the very end of the drive, and Defraggler first moved and a very large file to the end of the drive, would Defraggler actually report that very large file (say, about 2GB) was fragmented over those ghost blocks? My question really is: Is Defraggler imagining these blue ghost blocks and making it's own job exceedingly more difficult? UPDATE: The number of ghost blocks on my C\ drive have increased dramatically! Very bad news. I still don't know for sure if these blocks fragmaent larger files, but they're sticking to my drive and it's starting to become a problem. Now there are blocks that are colored solid dark blue (denoting not fragmented full occupancy) that have "no files in block. Many of these blocks are obiously afterimages of previously moved files. I'm starting to get worried about the health of my drive. I literally have hundreds of these ghost blocks on my C: drive now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragmaster Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 SOLUTION When I used WINDOWS(XP SP3 version)Defragmenter, the ghost blocks were removed, almost all of them. The afterimage of one large file still remained, but I can live with that. Used WINDOWS Defragmenter in Computer Management to get rid of most (if not all) of these pesky blocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romanoff Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Hi, most of the empty blue blocks are occupied by internal NTFS metafiles. Defraggler cannot do anything useful with them, so they are excluded from the analysis data as their names are very confusing for the non-technical users. Best regards Romanoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Fast Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Hi, most of the empty blue blocks are occupied by internal NTFS metafiles. Defraggler cannot do anything useful with them, so they are excluded from the analysis data as their names are very confusing for the non-technical users. Best regards Romanoff I would think that NOT having names would be even MORE confusing. Because at least when it shows the names, people KNOW there is something there. When nothing shows, it makes them so confused about "ghost" blocks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragmaster Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I would think that NOT having names would be even MORE confusing. Because at least when it shows the names, people KNOW there is something there. When nothing shows, it makes them so confused about "ghost" blocks! I completely agree with Super Fast. When navigating any Windows system folders (idk why anyone would want to, but it happens), seeing a file that you can't interact with and that has a funny name is a common occurance. However, seeing a file without a name, properties, or purpose causes a 'WTF?' reaction. These ghost blocks should list the names of the files within them and identify them as metafiles so that we can know that they are functioning and not a 'WTF?' type of glitch. I can see how not identifying them could safeguard against novice users attepting to edit these files and causing system instability, but labeling them as metafiles would tell everyone that they can't be moved or edited. I'm not entirely convinced that romanoff's explanation is necessarily addressed to this specific problem though. $MFT and $User.Dat are displayed in Defraggler along with other non-defragglerable files, so how are these other metafiles special by being "not in the block"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now