Windows 2000 Server performance has degraded on a 12-GB FAT32 primary partition hosting shared folders after nine months of steady usage with constant workload. What is the most effective first action to restore file retrieval speed without changing the data layout or client access?

Introduction / Context:
On Windows 2000 Server, file servers running for months on FAT32 volumes commonly encounter fragmentation. Even when the number of users, access frequency, and average file sizes remain constant, daily file creates, deletes, and edits fragment files and directories, increasing disk seeks and reducing throughput. This question asks for the best first remedial action that restores performance without redesigning storage or altering client behavior.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Operating system: Windows 2000 Server.
• Volume: 12-GB primary partition formatted as FAT32.
• Workload: steady user count and access frequency for nine months.
• Symptom: slower file retrieval from shared folders compared to initial install.
• Goal: restore performance with minimal change risk.

Concept / Approach:
File fragmentation spreads a file’s clusters across the disk surface, causing extra head movement. On FAT32, directory structures and free-space maps also become fragmented. The lowest-risk, high-impact step is to defragment the affected volume. Defragmentation consolidates files and free space, reducing seeks and improving read performance. Converting to NTFS can help long-term with better metadata handling and reliability, but conversion is not required to resolve the immediate symptom and introduces change risk. Dynamic disks alter partitioning/management but do not directly improve read performance. Moving the paging file onto the same busy partition can worsen contention.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Confirm the slowdown is general file access degradation, not network or memory pressure.2) Measure fragmentation using the built-in Disk Defragmenter analysis.3) Schedule and run defragmentation during low usage windows.4) Re-measure performance and fragmentation; optionally defragment again if necessary.5) Plan periodic defragmentation as preventive maintenance.

Verification / Alternative check:
Post-defrag, average disk queue length and average disk sec/read should decrease. User feedback and server counters will reflect shorter file open times. Compare before/after with Performance Monitor logs to verify improvement.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Convert to dynamic disk: Changes volume management but does not fix fragmentation or directly speed reads.
• Convert to NTFS: Beneficial for security and reliability; however, not required to correct the immediate slowdown and carries change risk.
• Move the paging file to this partition: Increases contention on the same disk, likely worsening performance.
• None of the above: Invalid because defragmentation directly addresses the cause.

Common Pitfalls:
Blaming the network stack for local disk fragmentation; migrating to NTFS prematurely without backups; defragmenting during peak hours causing additional contention.

Final Answer:
Defragment the disk that contains the shared folders