Too slow HDD read in a specific folder

0

I have a serious problem here and I'm tired trying to find a solution. I've a folder on my HDD in Partition D:, that folder contains my programs and it is 70 GB size. Each time I open this folder it takes too long time to open and to list its files and folders. I tried many solutions with no luck:

  1. Defrag Hard Disk.
  2. Scan Hard Disk for errors.
  3. Stop Indexing service.
  4. Stop Super Fetch service.
  5. Disable folders thumbnails.

And none worked!!

P.S: I notice some odd thing and wanted to share it and I'm not really sure is it related to my problem or not, The mentioned folder is more than 70 GB size, when I check its size by selecting all sub folders and files, but when I check its size externally from the folder properties it is only 10.5 GB!! Also the count of files and folders in both cases is different..

Properties window 01 Properties window 02

Operating system is Windows 10

EDIT: this is an image of the folder structure:

enter image description here

Any help would be greatly appreciated...

Ahmed Hassan Suror

Posted 2018-10-05T16:19:41.797

Reputation: 98

The Properties behavior you described is actually normal and expected. The size reported by Properties is based on the user’s permissions. – Ramhound – 2018-10-05T16:34:11.830

How many of the 114,116 files are in the root directory of D:\org? If you have a LOT of files in 1 folder, it will take a long time to load up the details. Are you able to move the files into sub-directories? FAT file system have a fairly low cap, but NTFS has a limit of 4,294,967,295 per disk/folder. – spikey_richie – 2018-10-05T18:09:53.730

@Ramhound More details please?! – Ahmed Hassan Suror – 2018-10-05T22:53:21.183

@spikey_richie of course the 114116 files are in folders and sub folders not on the root, the root is only about 20 files and the rest is folders. Also no folder has more than 10 to 20 files.. – Ahmed Hassan Suror – 2018-10-05T22:55:05.230

@AhmedHassanSuror - What is confusing about my statement? The Size on Disk being reported when you view Properties on the root directory is accurate. – Ramhound – 2018-10-05T22:58:37.550

@Ramhound No it is not accurate, I mean man how could user permissions affect this process?!! – Ahmed Hassan Suror – 2018-10-06T00:19:54.163

@AhmedHassanSuror - It's just how Windows works – Ramhound – 2018-10-06T01:53:16.497

Have you checked the SMART to see if the hard drive is failing or has issues. One big issue to look for is a high ECC (error correction) count. A new drive will have none or a few 100, but and old tired drive can be over 100,000,000 and climbing. Depending on the age of the drive if it were over 1 million I would still replace it. Have you run any benchmarks on the hard drive? To see how slow it is globally. – cybernard – 2018-10-06T14:24:28.580

@cybernard ... The SMART is good, and I did many benchmarks on HDD and it is good. My HDD is good except that folder in my question – Ahmed Hassan Suror – 2018-10-06T22:42:30.173

@AhmedHassanSuror The issue is probably you have to many files, and I stick by my answer below as the only way to speed it up measurably. Do you have 8gb or more of RAM? So windows has enough RAM to cache it? – cybernard – 2018-10-07T05:31:36.927

Did you defrag the MFT? Many defragger including the windows one can't do it. Ultradefragger can. https://ultradefrag.net/en/index.shtml

– cybernard – 2018-10-08T00:22:58.257

You say that the folder only have 10 o 20 folders inside, but it takes a lot of time for showing that 10-20 folders only, is that correct? Has the folder another type of files as the same level (for example links) or only folders? Do you have any custom columns configured in Explorer (apart from the standard name, type, size and date)? Finally, if you disable temporally your antivirus makes any difference? – Alberto Martinez – 2018-10-08T00:40:43.690

@AlbertoMartinez Answers in a a row: Correct, Folder and files, No custom columns (medium icons view), No difference. This is a picture of the folder structure: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0jidp.png

– Ahmed Hassan Suror – 2018-10-09T18:51:56.820

Answers

1

I think that the delay could be caused by the time Explorer takes to create the thumbnails, and since Explorer is scanning all the folders for composing the thumbnails of the folder contents (for example, like the Foxit Reader folder of the screen shot) that would be a lot of executables to scan based on the screen shot. Files that use individual thumbnails, for example images or executables, usually takes more time to be processed (specially installers, maybe due to AV scanning).

I would try two things:

  1. Use a view that doesn't show thumbnails, either switching the view of that folder to Details or List, or disabling the use of thumbnails in Explorer. Doing this would make Explorer extract the icons only for the files in the current level.

  2. Move all the installers that you have in the root of that folder inside another subfolder, so you only have folders and non-executable files in the first level.

Note that changing the view would affect only that folder while disabling the thumbnails affect all the folders, but if you don't mind about having the thumbnails removing them would probably improve the performance also for other folders.

For disabling the thumbnails do this:

  • Select the View tab of Explorer toolbar and press Options.
  • Go to the View tab of the options panel and in the option list check the one named Always show icons, never thumbnails.

Alberto Martinez

Posted 2018-10-05T16:19:41.797

Reputation: 1 235

AMAZING!! The root files (*.exe) causes the problem and also the thumbnail I moved them into a separate folder and disabled thumbnails and it worked. Thanks a lot... – Ahmed Hassan Suror – 2018-10-18T23:24:43.130

Also, please if you have an explanation of the difference of sizes as mentioned in the question?! – Ahmed Hassan Suror – 2018-10-18T23:27:21.010

I'm a bit puzzled by such a big difference, and the screenshots of the file properties discard being related to file compression. Since that issue is quite different from the one related to the icons I think that is better if you post a separate question (the rule in StackExchange sites is avoiding group different issues in the same question). – Alberto Martinez – 2018-10-21T12:15:46.917

1

My first choice would be to buy a 128gb or 256gb SSD, and if that isn't fast enough for you a M.2 SSD.

Each one has read/write performance levels that will never be achieved by a hard drive.

The SSD should give you 500mb/s read and anywhere from 200-500mb/s write depending on the model.

The M.2 can provide 2000mb/s read with 1000-1500 write. Also more expensive models can achieve 3000mb/s with a corresponding increase in speed.

You can't do much with a hard drive. The beginning of the hard drive is some what faster than the rest. You could create a 120-200gb partition, at the front of the drive, move the data there. However, I doubt this will achieve more than 10-20% improvement.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=0D9-002V-001N8&ignorebbr=1&cm_re=128gb_ssd--0D9-002V-001N8--Product $39.99

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA24G3UK3333&ignorebbr=1&cm_re=128gb_ssd--0D9-0006-000G6--Product $79.99

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147685&ignorebbr=1&cm_re=256gb_ssd--20-147-685--Product $97.99

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIADY17957394&ignorebbr=1&cm_re=256gb_ssd--0D9-0009-002R4--Product $129.95

cybernard

Posted 2018-10-05T16:19:41.797

Reputation: 11 200

Good suggestion, BUT EXTREMELY expensive also!! The problem isn't about the comparison between HDD And SSD, my hard disk is good and fast enough but the problem is in one folder only and this is the confusing part.. – Ahmed Hassan Suror – 2018-10-07T22:14:05.140

@AhmedHassanSuror Please examine the links. Is this really expensive to you? – cybernard – 2018-10-08T00:03:33.653