Well, you can't convince me that moving folders by direct drive access in windows, fat32, windows online can be dangerous or corrupt data.
With less stable w9x I never has troubles. Only few if windows freezes by other reasons or lost electrical power.
If working on the defragged drive the analizer restarts often.
How can be more dangerous or unsafe to directly move them under a much stable OS ?
Apart that, the folder is a cluster with filenames, >99% of time used in READ operations.
The very few programs really locking a folder are explorer type or folder create from inside a program.
Using a file inside a folder does not make the folder untouchable.
Try to lock a file inside a fat32 folder by some program, then use http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/unlocker1.8.7.exe
to rename the folder to whatever, then rename it back to original name. See if you can save file modifications. Are you corrupting data this way ?
I think it is a waste of time to invent and implement many ways to select files by the most weird criterias sometimes, move them in almost any place on drive if the most important factor for performance
and drive life
It's no use to move very frequently accessed files to front when folders pointing to the files are spread to the end.
For almost every file access the parent folder get a hit. The seek time is much bigger than read/write for the last cluster on drive.
If folders can't be moved, better move the files around them to reduce seek times.
I risk to tell you things you can already know.
Windows kernel has exports for functions to find active handles to items, pause process.
Finding who lock the folder is not so difficult.
And if NOTHING locked it how unsafe can be to move it by direct drive access in few milliseconds.
I don't get it !
As I believe, the folder creation is controlled by kernel. Creating it by other method permit the existance of 2 folders with same content and same name for a very short time, just the time needed for the rename-new - delete old operation.
If unlikely system crash, the last folder created is repaired by chkdsk, so where can be the corruption ?
BTW, on ntfs, the folders are moved differently ?
Try to put your computer to rar 10 folders with many contents, in same time unrar other 10 big archives. Pause them when in the middle of their multithread job. Unpause them until you have 20 active threads running on drive ant unplug the power cable. Please try this on unimportant fat32 and ntfs drives. After, try to see the damages.
Personally I've tried with 20 rar, 20 unrar, Kaspersky scan and windows defrag, all in same time.
The fat32 and ntfs drives contained ONLY rar archives(to be able to easy check their integrity after).
I run the test on old pIII/450 MHz with w2k. When it was unable to move the mouse without pauses I've cut the power. Many times repeated the test+repairs+recheck all the archives.
From first to second test, I get more lost/corrupted files on ntfs compared to fat32.
After the third try, the ntfs drive structure was unrecoverable.
I stop the ntfs testing to 3 because about 30% of drive contents was unrecoverable even by offline tools and the third test give me thousands of unlinked files.
The fat32 testing was stopped before 5 or 6 passes. Apart more passes, about 10-15% of files was not repaired by chkdsk or offline recovery software.
The percents are estimative because I made this testings about 7-8 years ago, as a bet/decission about the safety, speed of use and recoverability of lost data.
I wasn't mentioned before to not be considered crazy, because only crazy person risk to destroy 2 drives to take a conclusion, but...
I know how to convert from fat to ntfs. Even better than MS Convert is Partition Magic from PowerQuest for example. I am using it since 1998 I remember.
From my point the ntfs is not a solution for the portable drives wich I must plug in computers running w95/98
Also windows is much more faster on small fat32 partitions (around 5 GiB) and can be 100% defragmented by rebooting to w98 with SpeedDisk.
BTW, this method using direct drive access never corrupted my second NT OS and defrag drives >10 times faster.
But it is sometimes disturbing because I must fix some files/folders names before reboot as w98 is unable to understand them by his limitations.
So, shoot me but I've tested this food, living with it about 7-8 years.
Normally, I prefer to use it on my 2k/XP machines without the manual rename+reboot phases only for fat32 (wich I can't leave).
So I can test the unsafeties for you and help the fixes if you spent less than a week to plug it, locked by default for the usual users, and unlockable by a secret switch so I can test it.
_And, YES, all my posts come from closely, repetitive testings, calculations and benchmarks.
I am not inventing the things I write on this forum.
They come from guessing firstly followed by close observation, verifications, calculs, reverifications and benchmarking.
I can only be amused how people enjoy the possibilities to spread their files on drive, mixing files accessed today, once with files accessed hundred times daily.
Also, I am very sad, sometimes frustrated like, to see that ABSOLUTELY NONE of my verified conclusions, verbosely explained passed from wishlist to usable features.
I feel like an old man talking about benefits of football play for the health when, in best cases I get reply's that it's more fun to watch football on TV. Ah, if TV crash, I will consider to buy a ball as a priority, untill then...
But, nothing that can't be fixed in the future.