Disk fragmentation concept: Which description correctly explains what a “fragmented” hard drive is in terms of file layout and cluster usage?

Introduction / Context:
On spinning hard disks, file systems allocate clusters to store file data. Over time, as files are created, deleted, and grown, free space becomes scattered, and files can be split across many non-contiguous fragments, increasing seek overhead and slowing access.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Conventional HDD with FAT/NTFS-like cluster management.
• No assumption of physical defects; concern is logical allocation.
• Performance symptoms include long load times and slow sequential reads.

Concept / Approach:

Fragmentation is a logical placement issue: the bytes of a file are distributed across non-adjacent clusters. The disk head must perform extra seeks to assemble the file, increasing latency. Defragmentation utilities reorder clusters to place file extents together, reducing head movement.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Defrag tools display fragmentation maps. After defrag, files occupy longer contiguous ranges, and measured seek counts per MB drop, improving read speeds on HDDs.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Platters bad / clusters damaged: these describe physical defects (bad sectors), not fragmentation.
• Files corrupted: corruption affects integrity, not placement continuity.
• None of the above: incorrect because one option matches the definition exactly.

Common Pitfalls:

Defragging SSDs (unnecessary and wears flash); assuming fragmentation is the only cause of slowness (thermal throttling, malware, or low RAM can also slow systems).

Final Answer:

Files are not stored in consecutive clusters