System Image backup fails - not enough space for Volume Shadow Copy

[Kaktussoft]

Some third party caused it!! Disable USN on "system reserved"! But first uninstall that 3rd party product.
w7x64rc backup fails with error code 0x81000019

 

[highstream]

Ok, now I get your point about the pagefile partition. So I've deleted that partition and I've got pagefile set on (not auto), which presumably means it will use the system drive.

I've been aware of issues about defragging SSDs since getting my previous one, a Corsair 60gb. With that one, I found it got slow after 2-3 months and defragging once made a big difference. Since SSDs have improved and the Plextor has a 5 yr warranty, I've got defrag on that one set to once a month.

Thanks again,

 

[Kaktussoft]

Big difference... strange!!
http://www.sevenforums.com/performance-maintenance/8998-ssd-defrag-not-defrag-3.html

 

[highstream]

I've copied here a part from that link that doesn't make logical sense to me. In the first paragraph one can infer that the author believes some defragging will be worthwhile. In the second paragraph, he says that greater fragmentation means random access more often than sequential, but that random reads are nearly 1000 time slower than sequential. From that, one would assume that greater fragmentation means slower access, hence performace. But in the third paragraph he concludes exactly the opposite: performance will be improved if a drive is more fragmented. In the fourth paragraph, however, he writes as if he said just the opposite and for reasons of wear suggests defragging but not very often. What am I missing?

---
"So, for those of you who 'ASSUME' that defragging will not improve performance, pay attention.

a sequential read at the chip level is nearly 1000 times faster than a random read. now most of the reads on these drives will be sequential, because the data is written that way, but the more fragmented the drive is the more often its going to do a random access vs a sequential access.

So, performance WILL be improved if the drive is extremely fragmented."

BUT, since you have a very finite limit on the number of write/erase cycles, I wouldn't defrag a ssd more than one time, or at the very most very very seldom. (like once a year maybe at most)."

 

[mjf]

This description of the boot process may be useful:
http://www.sevenforums.com/software/139658-reflect-updates-3.html#post1207608
Many people decide to do away with the system reserved which is what I was referring to by "the way you want to go". In my opinion a separate System Reserved facilitates:
1) Clean multibooting
2) BitLocker encryption
3) F8 - start windows in safe mode

and I keep it.

3) F8 - start windows in safe mode => this has nothing to do with "system reserved" boot partition
1) Clean multibooting => boot partition must be an primary and active partition. OS partitions can be logical and inactive. So if you make your OS partition primary and active and put the bootmgr and bcd-menu (bootmenu) on it. It's working fine. But you can't simply delete that partition because it has the multiboot menu as well on it.

So seperating both tasks has some advantages.

2) BitLocker encryption => totally right.

Leave it the way it's now!

3)There are documented cases on this forum of F8 safe mode booting not working after and a workaround required - eg:
http://www.sevenforums.com/installation-setup/126522-100-mb-partition-3.html#post1094097
1) Clearly much better for multibooting.

@OP
You have assigned a 300MB partition for system reserved so you might as well use it.
Don't defrag your SSD
Here are some tweaks for SSDs. Leave your pagefile on the SSD but you can reduce it. I also disable hibernation.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1133897/windows-7-ssd-tweaking-guide

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/70822-ssd-tweaks-optimizations-windows-7-a.html

Added note: We have seen reported case of F8 not working after scrapping the system reserved. I can't say that is always the case. If C is active and your system reserved is not active, try F8 out and maybe it will work.

 

[highstream]

@OP You have assigned a 300MB partition for system reserved so you might as well use it.

Someone earliersuggested >100mb works better and the difference is nominal relative to the whole drive.

 

[mjf]

@OP You have assigned a 300MB partition for system reserved so you might as well use it.

Someone earliersuggested >100mb works better and the difference is nominal relative to the whole drive.

Size is nominal going from 100MB to say 200MB or 300MB. It should always have defaulted to 200MB and why MS suddenly decided 100MB is a moot point.
The system reserved can fill up with journal files and once you have less than 40-50MB free space you cannot make an image. By making the system reserved partition bigger you should always have at least 50MB of free space.

Alternatively as I think I stated you can clear USN journal files from the system reserved partition using the "fsutil" command.

In your case with 300MB system reserved you should never have this problem.

 

[Kaktussoft]

I've copied here a part from that link that doesn't make logical sense to me. In the first paragraph one can infer that the author believes some defragging will be worthwhile. In the second paragraph, he says that greater fragmentation means random access more often than sequential, but that random reads are nearly 1000 time slower than sequential. From that, one would assume that greater fragmentation means slower access, hence performace. But in the third paragraph he concludes exactly the opposite: performance will be improved if a drive is more fragmented. In the fourth paragraph, however, he writes as if he said just the opposite and for reasons of wear suggests defragging but not very often. What am I missing?

---
"So, for those of you who 'ASSUME' that defragging will not improve performance, pay attention.

a sequential read at the chip level is nearly 1000 times faster than a random read. now most of the reads on these drives will be sequential, because the data is written that way, but the more fragmented the drive is the more often its going to do a random access vs a sequential access.

So, performance WILL be improved if the drive is extremely fragmented."

BUT, since you have a very finite limit on the number of write/erase cycles, I wouldn't defrag a ssd more than one time, or at the very most very very seldom. (like once a year maybe at most)."

Once defragmented, all system files are sequential and stay sequential (unless you install a windows update).