Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?

Subject: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 06:15 AM

My defrag report said the following couldn't be defrag:

Fragments - 30
File size 30 MB
Files that cannot be defragmented: \found.001\dir0009.chk\DataStore\DataStore.edb

What the heck is it and should I do anything about it?

Thanks folks!!

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: s&r
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 06:23 AM

EDB is the file extension for the ROOTS3 Geneological data file.

Stu

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 06:24 AM

Thanks!

So, it is something from my genealogical software program? Why would it be unable to be defragged? Is it anything I need to worry about?

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 06:33 AM

Filext says it's probably an "email data file." There are a couple of other possiblilies given, but none that you're likely to have. If you have any kind of "contact manager," as a separate program or embedded in a browser or email program, that would be the most likely source for the file.

It's most likely a database format, and sometimes they fail to defrag if the database hasn't been "compacted" recently. Edits to a db sometimes leave unlinked records that are "deletion pending" and the defrag may be afraid to move them without knowing how they fit into the database.

This isn't a filetype that I recognize as part of my email system, but may be a standard type for one of the other browsers/email programs.

It's possible that the filetype is registered in Windows (so that Windows knows what to open it with if you click on the file). Looking in the filetypes setup might give a better clue than the generic answers at Filex.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 06:34 AM

It's also an Exchange Database file, used by Outlook and Outlook Express.

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 06:36 AM

s&r cross posted on me, with a better answer.

But see comment on uncompacted databases. That may stil be a reason for not defragging.

I don't know if the ROOTS3 includes any kind of cleanup, but it would be worth looking for a "compact" or "cleanup" or "compress" function in the program.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 01:00 PM

Thanks, guys, but you've lost me. I wouldn't know where to look for the program "ROOTS3" unless it is in my genealogical program.

I use only Mozilla and Thunderbird, so would hope this has nothing to do with OE!;-)

If it is something I can just leave alone and have no need to worry about it, then I will.

Thanks!

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: Bert
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 01:05 PM

Copy the file to a floppy or CDRW, check that it's OK, delete the original. Then copy it back to your hard drive.

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 02:56 PM

Bert -

I didn't think anyone but me was old enough to remember how we used to have to defrag stuff.

Kat -

I find two instances of the .edb file extension on my machine. Both are in sub-folders of the place where Microsoft Automatic Update keeps track of what has been added to your machine. One is a "Program Catalog" database and the other is part of a "PC Health" utility that may be associated with Microsoft's beta malware remover, or may be part of the "Help" system built into Windows.

The parent folder for both files is tagged as hidden, system, read only, and all "Properties" tabs are disabled because the files are "used by the operating system." ALL such files generally are shown as "cannot be moved" by Windows defrag.

Windows defrag generally doesn't even report a fragmentation condition for any such files, but might report these database files since the files themselves are not tagged. Since they're in subs of unmovable folders they should "inherit" a "don't bother" status from the unmovable parent folder. If you've felt you have to have some other "super defraggerator" some other programs may report the condition, but shouldn't attempt to move either of these files.

If either of these, DataStore.edb or HCdata.edb, is the .edb file you're seeing, you should ignore the report, and leave them alone. They're system files that shouldn't be moved by defrag.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 04:09 PM

Ah, that's much clearer. Thanks so much, John. I will take a look later, but I suspect they are the one you mention in your last sentence and I will leave them be.

Bert! It's been a long time since I've even thought of having to do so..so logical and here I am crying "wolf." **bg**

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: Snuffy
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 07:37 PM

I've got those two on my machine (XP Pro SP2) and also tmp.edb in folder C:\WINDOWS\System32\CatRoot2, so it looks like you should have them.

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 08:13 PM

Thanks, Snuffy.:-)

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: pavane
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 02:02 AM

If it's only 30mb, why worry about it. It shouldn't have much effect on a modern disk. Not like when our entire hard disk was only 30mb!

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: treewind
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 03:37 AM

If Windows has a good reason for refusing to defrag it, it's probably also a good reason not to copy it, delete it, and copy it back. In fact you'll probably find you can't delete it, for the same reason.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 04:07 AM

Anahata -

Keep it real quiet, but I suspect she's not using Windows defrag. The Windows defrag utility doesn't normally report defrag status for System Files that it knows it's not supposed to defrag. People who think they have to have extra goodies to "do it better" cause themselves all kinds of fuss and bother when their super defrangulators and mangulators tell them things they don't really need to know. And occasionally they get a superaddonicator that actually does something that the built in Windows utilities would know not to do, and then they have to rebuild their whole system, cause they've been so busy using "superdooperwhooper utilities" they never learned that Windows knows how to fix itself if they'd just leave it alone.

OF course that really only applies totally to WinXP, and I'm only guessing whether that's what's happening here.

How do you do that big grinnnn sign???

John

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 11:22 AM

Thanks, John. I can't wait to use the word "superaddonicator" with my geek friends.

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 01:48 PM

Pssst, John..as far as I now it IS a Windows program as I have not installed any of those superduperexpeealladefragilistic things you've mentioned.:-)

Thanks, though, alla youse yewz!

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 03:35 PM

Okay kat. I figured the only way to get a straight answer was to talk about you 'hind your back, so you'd eavesdroop.

Out loud now:

I'm curious why Windows defrag even reported the state of fragmentation for this file, since I've never seen it give results for any of my "unmovable" files. I guess now I'm going to have to poke around and see if there's any explanation in the KB. It may be that my files just haven't been fragmented enough to make it give me a report of this kind.

There are actually two separate steps to the "defrag" process. Defragmenting just means that each file is written in consecutive clusters on the drive, so that the read heads don't have to skip around to read the file. The second step should be called "compacting," where all the defragmented/contiguous files are moved to one end of the drive.

To completely compact the drive, the defrag program has to (a.)find a file that will exactly fit any gap of open clusters, and move it to fill the gap, or (b.) it must move files that were already consecutive and contiguous to make room for the largest file that fits in the number of clusters that can be made empty, or (c.) it can just move the "next file" down to close the gap. If (c.) is the best available option, it can result in the need to move every file on the drive that's "above" the gap, one at a time, even to close a very small gap. One of the reasons that the WinXP defrag finishes a little quicker than some older ones is that it will "accept" having a few of these gaps that would otherwise require moving very large numbers of files, and will stop with some "free space fragmentation" if closing a few gaps would take a lot of shuffling. How "tightly" it compacts the drive depends a bit on which file system is in use, and best results, with WinXP, are obtained with NTFS, although FAT32 usually isn't too much worse.

The purpose of the "compacting" step is to make all of the free space on the drive be "unfragmented," so that a new file added to the drive can't start writing in a space, run out of clusters, and have to go somewhere else to finish, since this would automatically make the new file "fragmented."

Efficient compacting can be a bit counterproductive though, since an unfragmented file with no adjacent free space may become fragmented if it's edited and needs to add another cluster.

Files whose size never changes should not become fragmented, once the disk is all in good order. Files that increase their file size will very often become fragmented, or add another fragment, each time they change enough to need another cluster.

"Unmovable" files that don't change their size in use generally will be in an unmovable bunch fairly low on the disk. "Unmovable" files that are subject to a lot of "editing" generally will be in a separate "band" fairly "high" on the disk, where there is more likely to be nearby (not necessarily contiguous) free space for the edits. This is an intentional reason for the files that defrag shouldn't move being in two (or more) separate regions of the drive. Fragmentation in the "upper unmovable" band(s) is normal and expected, and there's little you can do about it. Ignore it.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 08:10 PM

Phew! I always learn so much when you post in these threads, John! I think I understand most of what you said, this time.**bg**

I went back into defrag to see if it had cleared up more free space. I still have 54% free space on my C Drive.

Also, it would not defrag my D (Backup) because there is only 5% freespace left and it said it needs 15%. My Rog said I'm not supposed to defrag D anyway, not to worry about it.

(I wish he had someone like you working at the station. They have put in a whole computerised automation system plus new servers and no one but him knows anything near what they need to, to operate the systems. It's been very trying and frustrating for him. Braodcast sure ain't what it used to be!)

Thanks, again! (Yeah...thanks for talkin' behind my back.**bg**)

kat

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 11:47 PM

kat -

I'm not sure I agree with "you're not supposed to defrag D:\" although I don't see it as something to start an argument over. It depends on how often you access/edit stuff on the drive, whether it would help a lot to have it defragmented.

If you have sufficient space elsewhere; on C:\ for example, you could always move a few folders into a folder on your elsewhere (in a folder so they won't get separated), do the defrag D:\, and then move them back.

And don't forget that defragged isn't a big improvement in "safe." BACK SOME OF IT UP in a secure place, and maybe get some of it off your hard drives. It's a lot more fun playing when the playground isn't too crowded to kick up your heels.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: treewind
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 04:43 PM

It's all a horrible mess, isn't it.
Never a problem for me though: my file system's designed never to get badly fragmented. The need to be defragged is a Windows speciality.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 04:51 PM

John, I don't even understand what the heck D drive is except it is backup for the operating system/programs? (Also, I paraphrase too freely; he didn't actually say "not supposed to."**bg**)

So, I wouldn't know what to move nor how to safely. Perhaps I should take it into a shop and have them do something, but not knowing anything about any of the shops here, I hesitate to do so. Something in me doesn't qute trust that much!:-)

Anahata, what do you use instead of Windows? I have a rband-new laptop that has all windows components, but I dont' use it much, yet. Would be interested in what else I could use. I've heard bits and pieces around here.:-)

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: treewind
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 05:25 PM

Linux.
It can be tricky to install on laptops (but so can Windows: most Windows users don't know about installation problems because they buy it pre-installed on their PCs)

I don't want to get into an OS war here...
A Mac almost certainly doesn't have fragmentation problems either.
Actually I didn't think NTFS (the file system you should be using with Windows XP) was too bad for fragmentation either.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 11:36 PM

kat -

When you have more than one physical hard drive, or when you make more than one partition on a single physical drive, they're labelled using alphabetical "names." In Windows, or in DOS where the system came from, the A:\ and B:\ names are reserved for "removable media" drives which are usually floppy disk drives.

The first Hard Drive is nearly always called the C:\ drive. If you add additional hard drives, or additional partitions on the one you have, they're named in sequence as your D:\, E:\, etc. proceding up through the alphabet.

A "tradition," more than anything, usually makes the first "Optical Drive," a CD pr DVD reader or burner, the E:\ drive, and the next "Optical Drive" the F:\. If you have two hard drives, or two partitions on a single hard drive, the first one is nearly always C:\ and usually the second one is D:\. Even if you don't have CD or DVD drives to occupy the E:\ and F:\ positions in the list, sometimes a new hard drive that you add will skip to G:\ to continue the naming, but this isn't a strictly observed convention.

As an example, my computer came with:

a floppy drive A:\,
a 120GB internal hard drive C:\,
a 250MB ZIP drive that was treated as a "hard drive" D:\,
a DVD/CD read-only drive E:\,
a DVD/CD burner F:\.

When I added an external USB hard drive, it automatically took the "name" G:\.
Because I didn't "clean up" when the external USB failed, the replacement external drive that I use regularly is H:\.
When I plug my digital camera in it becomes the I:\ drive,

and when I plug my "reserve" 160GB external USB hard drive in for backups it's the J:\ drive.

Again more out of tradition than anything, when you connect to "drives" on a separate machine via a network, the customary name assignemnts start with Z:\ and work backwards through Y:\, X:\ etc. It's fairly common for system administrators to change the default so that when you "map" a network "drive" that you're permitted to access it appears as either Q:\ or R:\ and acts (mostly) just as if someone had installed a new separate hard drive in your own machine.

In traditional language, the A:\, B:\, C:\, ... X:\, Y:\, Z:\ refer to the different "physical spaces" where you can read or write the files that you use. Since any separate partitions on a single drive each "looks like" a separate physical device to the operating system, Microsoft "deprecates" even calling them "drives." The current preferred use is to call them "Volume A:\," Volume B:\," etc.

For most PC users, C:\ just means "where you put everything" or "where you put the Operating System and Programs." If it's the second choice, you usually have a D:\ that's "where you put data," or your D:\ space may be "where you keep archives or backups."

The way you use a separate "Drive" (or using Mickey's terminology, a separate "Volume") is entirely your choice. In the case of separate physical devices it's a bit like having two separate file cabinets to keep things in. In the case of two separate partitions on the same physical drive, it's perhaps more akin to having separate drawers in the same file cabinet.

The alphabetical names for your drives are mostly a tradition, although it's a fairly well embedded tradition. If you wish, you can change the "alphabetical name" for any drive to a different letter reasonably easily with most recent Win versions. ("Reasonably easily" may be questioned by some who've tried it.) You can also choose to have Windows Explorer show a "display name" of your own choosing, so my 7 "drives" could show in Win Explorer as Clyde, Zelma, Herbert, Dweeb, Oscar, Sweetie, and Sourpuss.

With WinXP, and with some earlier versions, it's even possible to "join" two or more physically separated "drives" into a single "volume" that looks, to you and to any programs that run on your machine, as if you had one single larger drive. This is akin to having several file cabinets and a secretary. You don't know, and don't really care, which file cabinet your secretary puts stuff in, as long as your secretary can bring it back when you ask for it.

Whether it's a separate drive, or a separate partition, having too much "stuff" on one is just like having a file drawer that's jammed so full that you can't easily sort through it to find the letter (file) you wan't. You'd probably pull out a few folders and lay them aside until you finished looking, and then you'd jam them back in where they belong. With files on your computer, you can't just lay the folders you pulled out on top of the file cabinet, you have to put them in another drawer (move them to another drive). When you've found what you're looking for, or "corrected the sorting because the dumbass boss messed it up when he got in your file drawer" (finished the defrag), you move the folders from the drawer (drive) where you put them temporarily, back to where they belong.

A backup or archive drive probably won't get fragmented too rapidly, so not bothering is probably okay if the files/folders on the drive aren't changed frequently.

Since Windows programs always makes a temp copy of any file that is opened, and the temp nearly always is made in the same folder with the original file, if you get really jammed up and there isn't enough space where the original file "lives" to make the temp copy, it's remotely possible to get a situation where you can't open a perfectly good file, although you still would probably be able to copy it somewhere else where it will run. Usually something else breaks before this condition is reached.

Especially with NTFS format, with WinXP file management, a desktop drive doesn't really need to be defragged very often. The main reason for doing it regularly is that the more fragmented it is the longer it take to defrag, so if you let it go too long it may take a somewhat longer time when you do get around to it. The less free space you have on a drive, the more benefit you get from more frequent defrag.

Defrag is needed more frequently on laptops simply because laptop hard drives typically are about one-tenth as fast as modern desktop drives, so having everything in optimum condition often does have an effect on operating speed.

Defrag is a critical need with some older Windows versions because most of them can only write operating system temp files withing a single contiguous space, so if the free space gets fragmented and there isn't a large enough single empty space for the temp files that the system needs, it may slow drastically or may simply stop. WinXP can splatter most of the temp files it uses just about anywhere, so it's much less critical.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 11:49 PM

Thanks John! That makes a lot of sense and is about what I figured. I, too, have an E and F for CDs and for writing CDs, etc. Can't remember what my camera shows up in when I plug it in.

Anahata, thanks for the info. I think I'll just stick with what came with the laptop, this time.

I am grateful to Mudcatters, too, that I have not used IE or OE for a long time!!:-)

kat

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: pavane
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 02:04 AM

And defrag just moves bits of files about, from one place to another. It doesn't necessarily increase the amount of free space much, if at all.

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 04:06 AM

Because of the need to have a single connected space for temp files, with some Win versions if your drive gets badly fragmented there may not be a single piece large enough for the OS and programs to function efficiently.

Defragmenting defrags the free space just as it defrags the files, putting all, or most, of the free space in one continuous bunch of clusters. This can significantly improve how well older Windows versions run, and can have some effect even with WinXP. WinXP is much less demanding about where it's temp files go, but even with WinXP there are a few things that work better if certain of the temp files are all in the same lump.

Hard drives are "rated" by several different parameters. A read/write speed (or time) gives an indication of how quickly the drive can move data to and from the recording medium when reading/writting a single cluster or a few closely adjacent ones. Another critical number is seek time, which tells how long it takes the "heads" to move from where they normally sit when idle to an "average location" where something might be located. The seek time is generally a whole lot longer than the time needed to read or write a cluster and move directly to the next cluster.

Typical desktop drives allow the heads to "hang" over the disk, so that a next read/write requirement is unlikely to require them to move too far. Typical laptop drives nearly always "park" the heads off at the edge of the disk during each "idle" pause between data transfers, so that the heads can't slam into the disk if the laptop gets moved or dropped. Thus the heads have to come all the way off the parking location (the slow seek time) for nearly every data transaction. Two drives with identical "numbers" can appear a lot different when used in these two different ways.

Since the laptop is already agonizingly slow when you're used to good desktop performance (even if the two machines have identical "specs"), it's reasonable to take a few additional pains to keep it as good as it can get, and that probably includes fairly frequent defragging.

With a desktop drive, the slightly slower drive response from a moderately fragmented disk isn't likely to be noticed, although if fragmentation gets really bad some decrease in performance may be felt.

With older Win versions, as mentioned, even moderate fragmentation of the drive that contains the Operating Sytem can drastically reduce the usable temp file space, even though the total amount of free space on the drive isn't changed, so more frequent defragging is indicated for those systems, especially if the total free space is a bit low.

A separate partition, or drive, that contains only data generally isn't harmed by a bit of fragmentation (within reason) because Windows doesn't keep going back to the potentially fragmented "original" file much once it copies it to the temp file that it actually uses to run the program.

As pavane notes, defragging doesn't change the amount of free space; but if the OS requires free space that's all in one contiguous group of clusters it can significantly increase the "usable temp space" available to the OS. One file fragment dropped in the middle of an empty area of the drive can cut the usable temp space in half on some older systems.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 02:33 AM

With win95 & 98, I forced my CD & DVD drives to have letters 'up the top end' so that if I added or removed HD drives or partitions, I would not have to rearrange things.

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:08 AM

Foolestroupe -

With the "display name" method, you can name them after your old girlfriends, and it doesn't matter which alphabetical drive name they have. I think that's one of the reasons the network admins like to have server names instead of just port addresses. One place I worked as a "visiting expert" for a while had one server named "Darth" and the other was "Vader."

Back a few centuries ago (as in Windows 3.11 days) lots of people let the drives take whatever name the machine gave them and just put a "Set" in Config.Sys to rename them so they'd look like they were in order.

With WinXP it's fairly easy to "name" a folder on a drive so that it looks like its a separate hard drive, with an X:\ kind of name in Win Explorer. You can impress the visitors by making it look like you've got 24 hard drives on your machine (26 possible, but you always need a spare hole or two. ...Tell them you've got a couple in the shop being upgraded.)

John

Subject: RE: Tech: can't defrag an edb file - what is it?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:18 AM

Control Panel - System Properties - CDROM - click on drive - properties - settings - Reserved drive letters - change it here in this section - Set both upper and lower bound to for instance, "R" -it will then stick with that drive letter, changing to it on the next boot.


Never tried it to see if it will stick and push new drives above it, for the reason stated above - just wanted to get them out of the way, and given a fixed drive letter for batch file purposes, links etc.