kony wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2006 12:07:53 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:
> >VWWall wrote:
> >> Citizen Bob wrote:
> >> > On 24 Oct 2006 01:02:18 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:
> >FAT32 max partition size is 30G, which is its biggest limitation. NTFS
> >is a much more secure and reliable fs as well as being more fully
> >featured.
> This is generally untrue.
>
> UNLESS you set encryption or permissions, NTFS gains nothing
> security wise. Maybe he would, but the security is not
> better just because of NTFS.
>
> As for reliability, not really. The vast majority of
> problems with FAT32, would effect NTFS as well.
> >Eg FAT has 2 copies of the FAT, and when an error ocurs, as
> >they do, scandisk just picks one at random and overwrites the other.
> If you have errors, fix the problem.
nice idea, but optimistic
> >50% of the time tis works... and 50% of the time you lose data. NTFS
> >has 3 copies, so this problem doesnt happen. FAT has no password
> >security system, ntfs does, so fat is 100% accessible to viri and any
> >user.
> Where does a virus tend to put itself? OS partition. Are
> you seriously claiming everyone with NTFS on Winxp, has
> never had a virus on their OS partition?
Never claimed any such thing.
> >Maybe you dont need the features of ntfs and fat32's limitations arent
> >a problem. FAT32 does give more OS options than ntfs, handy if dual
> >booting, running dos apps, or swapping discs with winDOS systems.
> I'm not suggesting FAT32 is better than NTFS, but
> practically speaking everyone repeats the marketing blurb
> you did, too, without really considering the application,
> whether it'll matter.
OK :) I'll accept most of what you say. I've mostly stayed with fat for
compatibility reasons. I guess the experienced difference is down to os
more than fs, fat has not proved robust.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:25:47 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'd cut to the chase and move to XP.
>Install that on one of your spare drives, apply SP2 and the online updates.
I will consider it.
>Install all those apps, dont worry about the settings/config stuff for those.
What apps are you talking about? What exactly do you mean by
"install"?
>Use the files and settings transfer wizard in XP to get the settings
>and config stuff and files from the 2K install you are currently using.
I presume this is a new version of the IPU.
>See how you like that XP install, particularly that the wizard has got
>all the settings etc across fine.
Is there an easy way to do that or do I have to test each app one at a
time?
>If they are mostly fine and it just hasnt
>got the settings for a few apps across, do those manually, if necessary
>repeatedly rebooting between 2K and XP to check the original settings etc.
I can handle manually installing a few apps.
>Once its working fine, break out the champagne and get on with your 'life'
My life is already as "gotten on with" as it can get.
--
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:57:01 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>You might take it the other way 'round though, get the clean
>Win2k SP4 installation working and before trying to change
>it, first compare it... for example, what's sitting in your
>system32/drivers folder, if all the hardware works on the
>new installation, take a hard look at what's *extra* on your
>old installation.
That's as much work, if not more, than just reinstalling everything.
If I screw up even one Registry Key, it could impact the behavior of
the new system and I'd be back where I started.
I am still testing this new NTFS filesystem, the one I copied
everything in from the FAT32 partition. Thus far it has not gotten
corrupted. Maybe there was some kind of screwball entity in the
pagefile or MFT and by creating a new NTFS partition I got rid of it.
One thing I do notice is that Windows loads faster now. But it still
creates two devices for each partition which show up in defraggers but
not Disk Management.
--
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:17:16 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>since changing to FAT32 fixed
>the corruption but not the extra entry for each partition.
I di dnot test the FAT32 filesystem long enough to be certain that it
fixed the corruption problem. Of course, there can be no "NTFS
corruption" with a FAT32 partition.
Now that I am using a new NTFS partition, we will see if it gets
corrupted. It takes a week or two to make sure.
>>> A retrospective abortion may well be the only solution.
>> That is not a nice thing to say about my son.
>That was a joke, Joyce.
It's not funny. It's sick.
Obviously you do not have a son you can be proud of. Pity you.
--
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge
Citizen Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> I'd cut to the chase and move to XP.
>> Install that on one of your spare drives,
>> apply SP2 and the online updates.
> I will consider it.
>> Install all those apps, dont worry about the settings/config stuff for those.
> What apps are you talking about?
All those you have got installed.
> What exactly do you mean by "install"?
You must know what installing apps is about.
>> Use the files and settings transfer wizard in XP to get the settings
>> and config stuff and files from the 2K install you are currently using.
> I presume this is a new version of the IPU.
Nope.
>> See how you like that XP install, particularly that
>> the wizard has got all the settings etc across fine.
> Is there an easy way to do that
Nope.
> or do I have to test each app one at a time?
Yep.
>> If they are mostly fine and it just hasnt got the settings for
>> a few apps across, do those manually, if necessary repeatedly
>> rebooting between 2K and XP to check the original settings etc.
> I can handle manually installing a few apps.
You should be able to handle manually installing all those apps.
Not a shred of rocket science required at all.
>> Once its working fine, break out the champagne and get on with your 'life'
> My life is already as "gotten on with" as it can get.
Easy to claim when you are crippling along using a
fucked install of 2K when the world has moved on.
>kony wrote:
>> On 24 Oct 2006 12:07:53 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:
>> >VWWall wrote:
>> >> Citizen Bob wrote:
>> >> > On 24 Oct 2006 01:02:18 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:
>
>> >FAT32 max partition size is 30G, which is its biggest limitation. NTFS
>> >is a much more secure and reliable fs as well as being more fully
>> >featured.
>
>> This is generally untrue.
>>
>> UNLESS you set encryption or permissions, NTFS gains nothing
>> security wise. Maybe he would, but the security is not
>> better just because of NTFS.
>>
>> As for reliability, not really. The vast majority of
>> problems with FAT32, would effect NTFS as well.
>
>
>> >Eg FAT has 2 copies of the FAT, and when an error ocurs, as
>> >they do, scandisk just picks one at random and overwrites the other.
>
>> If you have errors, fix the problem.
>
>nice idea, but optimistic
Not at all, NTFS is not a solution to a serious problem like
continual corruption of your filesystem. Optimistic would
be hoping that if you run NTFS, somehow the machine will
decide to only corrupt tables and nothing more.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:40:16 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob)
wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:57:01 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>You might take it the other way 'round though, get the clean
>>Win2k SP4 installation working and before trying to change
>>it, first compare it... for example, what's sitting in your
>>system32/drivers folder, if all the hardware works on the
>>new installation, take a hard look at what's *extra* on your
>>old installation.
>
>That's as much work, if not more, than just reinstalling everything.
>
Define work? Time or what?
It's the computer doing it, automated, right now I could
export the 3 keys, copy the program files folders, and
compare files and Device Manager entries in under 10
minutes, maybe more than 10 minutes to copy 100's of apps if
it was being done over a slow LAN instead of drive to drive.
You do understand that to export registry entries, you dont'
select each individual one, you highlight the subkey and all
children under that subkey are exported with one go.
Exporting the keys I'd mentioned and merging them takes
under 1 minute and maybe 20 mouse clicks (grand total for
mundane things like choosing where to save the files, etc).
>If I screw up even one Registry Key, it could impact the behavior of
>the new system and I'd be back where I started.
Regedit has this feature, for this purpose, so what can I
say? It's like telling you to print something and you
write "what if I screw up the printing".
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:56:09 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>It's the computer doing it, automated, right now I could
>export the 3 keys,
Which 3 keys - my Registry has 5 hive keys.
I must have missed something along the way, because I do not see how
exporting hive keys is going to do any good. If the Registry is
screwed up, then exporting hive keys is going to carry the screwed up
parts along.
--
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:21:38 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I did not test the FAT32 filesystem long enough
>> to be certain that it fixed the corruption problem.
>Why not when that involves running chkdsk ?
I ran chkdsk. The corruption problem occurs seemingly at random. The
longer I go between reboots, the more likely corruption is. I have
gone as long as a week with no problems only to have it back again on
the next day.
>> Now that I am using a new NTFS partition, we will see if
>> it gets corrupted. It takes a week or two to make sure.
>No it doesnt if you run chkdsk.
You don't seem to understand the exact nature of this problem. I have
to reboot to run chkdsk, and that is when the corruption shows up. It
does not show up unless I reboot.
Ironically, if the corruption occurs, Win2K runs chkdsk for me at boot
time. Sometimes the corruption is so extensive that I get a BSOD.
That's when I have to mount the disk as D: and run chkdsk from another
boot disk. When that happens chkdsk spews forth page after page of
security descripters for kazillions of files that are presumably
corrupted too.
I have always been able to recover with one exception involving a
BSOD. That one was so bad the disk would not mount in Win2K, so
obviously I could not run chkdsk.
--
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge
> >> >Eg FAT has 2 copies of the FAT, and when an error ocurs, as
> >> >they do, scandisk just picks one at random and overwrites the other.
> >> If you have errors, fix the problem.
> >nice idea, but optimistic
> Not at all, NTFS is not a solution to a serious problem like
> continual corruption of your filesystem. Optimistic would
> be hoping that if you run NTFS, somehow the machine will
> decide to only corrupt tables and nothing more.
You said fix the problem. If you know how to make 98 manage memory
properly and not crash regularly, occasionally leaving FAT problems
behind, I'm all ears!
Citizen Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> I did not test the FAT32 filesystem long enough
>>> to be certain that it fixed the corruption problem.
>> Why not when that involves running chkdsk ?
> I ran chkdsk. The corruption problem occurs seemingly at
> random. The longer I go between reboots, the more likely
> corruption is. I have gone as long as a week with no
> problems only to have it back again on the next day.
That sounds like some fundamental hardware problem
like the motherboard doesnt like the ram much.
I'd run memtest86 overnight every night because it
looks rather like the problem is rather intermittent.
>>> Now that I am using a new NTFS partition, we will see if
>>> it gets corrupted. It takes a week or two to make sure.
>> No it doesnt if you run chkdsk.
> You don't seem to understand the exact nature of this problem.
You never did say it very clearly.
> I have to reboot to run chkdsk, and that is when the
> corruption shows up. It does not show up unless I reboot.
Likely that is just because it isnt corrupted enough to affect normal ops.
> Ironically, if the corruption occurs, Win2K runs chkdsk for me at boot time.
Thats rather odd. That may be a coincidence tho, just that you are
only aware of the corruption when chkdsk is run and when 2K chooses
to run it, presumably because it decides that it wasnt shut down
properly, you see the corruption just because chkdsk has been run.
> Sometimes the corruption is so extensive that I get a BSOD. That's when
> I have to mount the disk as D: and run chkdsk from another boot disk.
Thats even odder.
> When that happens chkdsk spews forth page after page of security
> descripters for kazillions of files that are presumably corrupted too.
> I have always been able to recover with one exception
> involving a BSOD. That one was so bad the disk would
> not mount in Win2K, so obviously I could not run chkdsk.
>kony wrote:
>> On 26 Oct 2006 00:17:27 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:
>
>> >> >Eg FAT has 2 copies of the FAT, and when an error ocurs, as
>> >> >they do, scandisk just picks one at random and overwrites the other.
>
>> >> If you have errors, fix the problem.
>
>> >nice idea, but optimistic
>
>> Not at all, NTFS is not a solution to a serious problem like
>> continual corruption of your filesystem. Optimistic would
>> be hoping that if you run NTFS, somehow the machine will
>> decide to only corrupt tables and nothing more.
>
>You said fix the problem. If you know how to make 98 manage memory
>properly and not crash regularly, occasionally leaving FAT problems
>behind, I'm all ears!
>
Non-applicable, '98 doesn't allow the choice of NTFS.
I do have systems that run FAT32 on '98 though, and can't
recall the last time any files were lost.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:11:26 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob)
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:56:09 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>It's the computer doing it, automated, right now I could
>>export the 3 keys,
>
>Which 3 keys - my Registry has 5 hive keys.
>
>I must have missed something along the way, because I do not see how
>exporting hive keys is going to do any good. If the Registry is
>screwed up, then exporting hive keys is going to carry the screwed up
>parts along.
I mentioned specific keys.
"IF" the registry is screwed up and that's the problem, then
reproducing that problem by only copying some reg keys will
at least help to isolate it.
I can see you are still not understanding the situation- the
only thing keeping you from having a properly working
system is _you_. You are trying to think, or argue, instead
of _doing_. Taking the approach you have, no problems
anyone has would be solved, but clearly problems do get
solved.
kony wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2006 11:43:06 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:
> >kony wrote:
> >> On 26 Oct 2006 00:17:27 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:
> >> >> >Eg FAT has 2 copies of the FAT, and when an error ocurs, as
> >> >> >they do, scandisk just picks one at random and overwrites the other.
> >> >> If you have errors, fix the problem.
> >> >nice idea, but optimistic
> >> Not at all, NTFS is not a solution to a serious problem like
> >> continual corruption of your filesystem. Optimistic would
> >> be hoping that if you run NTFS, somehow the machine will
> >> decide to only corrupt tables and nothing more.
> >You said fix the problem. If you know how to make 98 manage memory
> >properly and not crash regularly, occasionally leaving FAT problems
> >behind, I'm all ears!
> Non-applicable, '98 doesn't allow the choice of NTFS.
I've put ntfs on 98, courtesy of Mr Russinovich. Read only
unfortunately.
> I do have systems that run FAT32 on '98 though, and can't
> recall the last time any files were lost.
Lucky you. Maybe mostly running older drives comes into it too, but
I've seen 98 mangle a FAT on several occasion.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:30:49 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>I can see you are still not understanding the situation- the
>only thing keeping you from having a properly working
>system is _you_. You are trying to think, or argue, instead
>of _doing_. Taking the approach you have, no problems
>anyone has would be solved, but clearly problems do get
>solved.
Thanks for the lecture.
--
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:24:19 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>That sounds like some fundamental hardware problem
>like the motherboard doesnt like the ram much.
>I'd run memtest86 overnight every night because it
>looks rather like the problem is rather intermittent.
I have run it but not every night.
>You never did say it very clearly.
I did many times earlier. This thread has been recurring for several
months now. Apparently you were not participating on this particular
forum back then.
>> I have to reboot to run chkdsk, and that is when the
>> corruption shows up. It does not show up unless I reboot.
>Likely that is just because it isnt corrupted enough to affect normal ops.
It is pretty corrupted when it BSODs. CHKDSK fusses about all sorts of
things. I posted a file containing all the crap CHKDSK fixed and it is
several pages long. Next time I get a BSOD, I will post it again.
>> Ironically, if the corruption occurs, Win2K runs chkdsk for me at boot time.
>
>Thats rather odd. That may be a coincidence tho, just that you are
>only aware of the corruption when chkdsk is run and when 2K chooses
>to run it, presumably because it decides that it wasnt shut down
>properly, you see the corruption just because chkdsk has been run.
There are entries in the Event Viewer - "corrupt ntfs volume, run
chkdsk". Not very helpful. Nothing else seems to be wrong in EV.
After a few days of running the "new" NTFS partition, the one made
from the earlier FAT32, I finally got a corrupt disk. When it was
booting it ran CHKDSK on its own. The only apparent problem was "blank
space in the MFT".
--
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:45:03 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>All you have to do is make a clean
>installation, export the appropriate registry keys and copy
>over the installation folders and shortcuts for the start
>menu.
I still do not know what Registry keys you are referring to.
It is very likely that the corrupt ntfs filesystem is coming from a
Registry key. So how do I prevent it from contaminating the new
install?
--
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge
Citizen Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> That sounds like some fundamental hardware problem
>> like the motherboard doesnt like the ram much.
>> I'd run memtest86 overnight every night because it
>> looks rather like the problem is rather intermittent.
> I have run it but not every night.
I'd run it every night for a few weeks, because it
looks like it might well be an intermittent problem.
>> You never did say it very clearly.
> I did many times earlier.
Nope, you never spelt it out that clearly before.
It wasnt initially clear that reformat to FAT32 had fixed just
SOME of the problems and not the duplicate entrys either.
> This thread has been recurring for several months now.
> Apparently you were not participating on this particular
> forum back then.
Its silly to rely memory of stuff that far back even if I was.
There's been a few more than just you with problems over that time.
>>> I have to reboot to run chkdsk, and that is when the
>>> corruption shows up. It does not show up unless I reboot.
>> Likely that is just because it isnt corrupted enough to affect normal ops.
> It is pretty corrupted when it BSODs.
Sure, I meant when it doesnt, just runs chkdsk itself at boot time.
> CHKDSK fusses about all sorts of things. I posted a file
> containing all the crap CHKDSK fixed and it is several
> pages long. Next time I get a BSOD, I will post it again.
Dont bother, I can find it using groups.google
and the detail really doesnt matter much.
>>> Ironically, if the corruption occurs, Win2K runs chkdsk for me at boot time.
>> Thats rather odd. That may be a coincidence tho, just that you are
>> only aware of the corruption when chkdsk is run and when 2K chooses
>> to run it, presumably because it decides that it wasnt shut down
>> properly, you see the corruption just because chkdsk has been run.
> There are entries in the Event Viewer - "corrupt ntfs volume, run chkdsk".
And that is something you should have said earlier too.
> Not very helpful.
Dunno, how soon those show up might well be useful info
about how soon you start seeing corruption after a cleanup.
> Nothing else seems to be wrong in EV.
> After a few days of running the "new" NTFS partition, the
> one made from the earlier FAT32, I finally got a corrupt
> disk. When it was booting it ran CHKDSK on its own.
When did the first EV entry show up in that sequence ?
> The only apparent problem was "blank space in the MFT".
Clearly something is screwing with the directory structures.
I'd personally do a clean install of 2K on a spare hard drive
and run that for days to see if that gets corrupted too. Basically
to see if the problem is with the hardware or a fucked 2K install.
It'd be hilarious if it turns out to be those removable drive bays that are doing it.
>> I do have systems that run FAT32 on '98 though, and can't
>> recall the last time any files were lost.
>
>Lucky you. Maybe mostly running older drives comes into it too, but
>I've seen 98 mangle a FAT on several occasion.
Nope not old drives, and not luck. Though win98 had several
issues people were frequently glad to be rid of moving to NT
based OS, losing files because of FAT32 just wasn't one of
them.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:56:49 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob)
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:30:49 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>I can see you are still not understanding the situation- the
>>only thing keeping you from having a properly working
>>system is _you_. You are trying to think, or argue, instead
>>of _doing_. Taking the approach you have, no problems
>>anyone has would be solved, but clearly problems do get
>>solved.
>
>Thanks for the lecture.
Is it not true?
If it were more useful to continue down the path you're
taking, I would've- but how many times and posts have
transpired already? I'm posting what I consider the best
course to rectify the problem, that course being to do...
already plenty of though on it but that didn't help so it's
time to shift gears.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:58:42 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob)
wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:45:03 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>All you have to do is make a clean
>>installation, export the appropriate registry keys and copy
>>over the installation folders and shortcuts for the start
>>menu.
>
>I still do not know what Registry keys you are referring to.
>
I posted them. HKCU-software, HKLM- software,
HK-Classes-Root. The abbreviations are obvious enough when
looking at regedit.
You have not yet done the clean install though? Trying to
look at the whole process in one lump is always more
difficult than taking things one step at a time and it's not
time to merge the registry if you dont' have a known good
clean 2KSP4/patched installation up yet.
>It is very likely that the corrupt ntfs filesystem is coming from a
>Registry key. So how do I prevent it from contaminating the new
>install?
You dont' need to. You get system working before reg keys
are added, make a backup. Make sure it works right, no
phantom double drive volume entries or anything like that
and if adding the registry entries causes the problem you
have then isolated it to a registry setting which is a GOOD
thing, more than you have to go on so far.
It shouldn't be though, you're only merging the software
keys, not the entire registry, and ideally weeding out
software you dont' even have installed anymore before
exporting it, but if you want to save time and not weed that
stuff out, that's ok too- it'll just be a little clutter
opposed to a lot of it and the problem.
The main thing to remember is you are not trying to do all
of this (registry AND files) at once. Do one, and verify
the system works properly. Same goes for comparing the
driver folders- comparison should be done before adding
anything from the old installation.
There's no point in typing anything more if you're not going
to get the system into a state where it could be applied.
kony wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2006 01:22:05 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>>
>> Lucky you. Maybe mostly running older drives comes into it too,
>> but I've seen 98 mangle a FAT on several occasion.
>
> Nope not old drives, and not luck. Though win98 had several
> issues people were frequently glad to be rid of moving to NT
> based OS, losing files because of FAT32 just wasn't one of
> them.
I guess you haven't got him plonked for obscenity.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 05:25:00 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> CHKDSK fusses about all sorts of things. I posted a file
>> containing all the crap CHKDSK fixed and it is several
>> pages long. Next time I get a BSOD, I will post it again.
>Dont bother, I can find it using groups.google
>and the detail really doesnt matter much.
I finally got a BSOD this morning, but I forgot to redirect the
output. It was the same sort of thing as it always is with a BSOD. And
this was only 24 hours after yesterday's boottime automatic chkdsk.
IOW it appears that the corruption is beginning to occur more often.
I do not have enough data to state this with certaintym but I have
noticed that if I defrag with PerfectDisk, both online and offline,
that I can go a lot longer before corruptions. After a defrag I can
get as much as a week before corruption. Then they come more often
until I defrag again.
One hypothesis is that those dual devices are confusing the MFT and it
gets worse with time until it finally crashed the system upon boot.
Eventually it gets so bad it BSODs on boot.
>When did the first EV entry show up in that sequence ?
Here is the usual sequence. I look in EV and see nothing wrong. I
clean it out so there are no entries. I shut down and reboot. Most of
the time when something goes wrong I get an automatic chkdsk, and
about 10% of those times I get a BSOD instead. After fixing the disk I
look in EV and that's when I see the Corrupt NTFS Volume message. It
always appears twice in succession at the time of the reboot.
>> The only apparent problem was "blank space in the MFT".
>Clearly something is screwing with the directory structures.
>I'd personally do a clean install of 2K on a spare hard drive
>and run that for days to see if that gets corrupted too. Basically
>to see if the problem is with the hardware or a fucked 2K install.
You still do not appreciate the situation I am in. I cannot run an
empty Win2K. I have to have applications and that's what I do not want
to do - reinstall applications on a new Win2K.
If I had another machine I could do it although I would not be
exercising the applications since there would not be any.
There is always the possibility that a rogue application I am running
is causing the problem. If I could get a stable baseline for the
system, then I could keep track of what I run each day.
>It'd be hilarious if it turns out to be those removable drive bays that are doing it.
I have no evidence to support that. If the removable bays were causing
the trouble then I would see the corruption happening at times other
than reboot. Also, I would see it happening to the backup disk in D:
--
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge
I never saw that post. You did not post any Registry keys like the
ones above on this forum that I can find.
I ran a Google Groups Advanced search on this forum with "HKCU" as the
keyword. I found only this exact post - the one I am replying to right
here - and one other that had nothing to do with this discussion.
Either your computer is broken or you are posting to another group or
you are hallucinating. But don't take my word for it - check it out
yourself on Google. If you find it, then I am hallucinating.
>It shouldn't be though, you're only merging the software
>keys, not the entire registry, and ideally weeding out
>software you dont' even have installed anymore before
>exporting it, but if you want to save time and not weed that
>stuff out, that's ok too- it'll just be a little clutter
>opposed to a lot of it and the problem.
If those are the only keys I have to deal with, then I can weed them
out in a text editor or a Registry editor.
>There's no point in typing anything more if you're not going
>to get the system into a state where it could be applied.
Now that I know what keys to export, I can guage the size of the
project. It looks doable now, so I will put it on my calendar. I am
currently involved in reprogramming my remote control using JP1 hacks
for new DVDs I bought but there are no codes available.
It seems all I am doing nowadays is fixing things.
--
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge
Citizen Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> CHKDSK fusses about all sorts of things. I posted a file
>>> containing all the crap CHKDSK fixed and it is several
>>> pages long. Next time I get a BSOD, I will post it again.
>> Dont bother, I can find it using groups.google
>> and the detail really doesnt matter much.
> I finally got a BSOD this morning, but I forgot to redirect the
> output. It was the same sort of thing as it always is with a BSOD. And
> this was only 24 hours after yesterday's boottime automatic chkdsk.
> IOW it appears that the corruption is beginning to occur more often.
> I do not have enough data to state this with certaintym
> but I have noticed that if I defrag with PerfectDisk, both
> online and offline, that I can go a lot longer before
> corruptions. After a defrag I can get as much as a week before
> corruption. Then they come more often until I defrag again.
I bet that is an illusion, and if it isnt, likely its just because a defrag
minimises the changes that are needed to the MFT due to normal
file activity, and so it gets corrupted slower just due to that.
> One hypothesis is that those dual devices are confusing the MFT
Cant be that because access will always
be via one of the devices with normal ops.
> and it gets worse with time until it finally crashed the system
> upon boot. Eventually it gets so bad it BSODs on boot.
>> When did the first EV entry show up in that sequence ?
> Here is the usual sequence. I look in EV and see nothing wrong. I
> clean it out so there are no entries. I shut down and reboot. Most of
> the time when something goes wrong I get an automatic chkdsk, and
> about 10% of those times I get a BSOD instead. After fixing the disk I
> look in EV and that's when I see the Corrupt NTFS Volume message.
> It always appears twice in succession at the time of the reboot.
>>> The only apparent problem was "blank space in the MFT".
>> Clearly something is screwing with the directory structures.
>> I'd personally do a clean install of 2K on a spare hard drive
>> and run that for days to see if that gets corrupted too. Basically
>> to see if the problem is with the hardware or a fucked 2K install.
> You still do not appreciate the situation I am in.
Wrong.
> I cannot run an empty Win2K.
Corse you can for a TEST.
> I have to have applications and that's what I do not
> want to do - reinstall applications on a new Win2K.
I'm talking about a TEST, not a new config.
> If I had another machine I could do it
You dont need another machine, just another hard drive for the test.
> although I would not be exercising the
> applications since there would not be any.
Even you should be able to install just a couple of apps for the TEST.
> There is always the possibility that a rogue
> application I am running is causing the problem.
Unlikely since few apps directly manipulate the MFT, they leave that to the OS.
That is however why I suggested not using Perfect Disk
for a while, in case it that thats corrupting the MFT.
> If I could get a stable baseline for the system,
> then I could keep track of what I run each day.
You dont need to have a stable baseline to do that.
>> It'd be hilarious if it turns out to be those
>> removable drive bays that are doing it.
> I have no evidence to support that.
Yes, but it would be worth trying the boot drive directly connected
instead of in the removable drive bay to eliminate that possibility since
we do know that you can get that result with removable drive bays.
> If the removable bays were causing the trouble then I would
> see the corruption happening at times other than reboot.
You dont know that you dont get it at times other than a reboot.
And even if it does only happen on a reboot, that proves nothing
about what is doing that. If it only happens on a reboot, it cant be
an app doing it, it has to be the OS or the hardware.
> Also, I would see it happening to the backup disk in D:
Not necessarily.
Anyone with a clue would try the boot drive directly connected and see if
the corruption still occurs. Bet you'll find a reason not to do that obvious test.
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:03:20 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You still do not appreciate the situation I am in.
>Wrong.
Do you depend on your computer every day to make money? Or do you just
use it for recreation?
>> I cannot run an empty Win2K.
>Corse you can for a TEST.
In order to test the new install, I would have to run it full time for
several days. What am I supposed to do about all the apps I normally
run in the course of a day? I can't just abandon my routine for a test
- I need to run the apps every weekday.
>> I have to have applications and that's what I do not
>> want to do - reinstall applications on a new Win2K.
>I'm talking about a TEST, not a new config.
If I do not install enough apps then I can't run the things I need to
run.
>> If I had another machine I could do it
>You dont need another machine, just another hard drive for the test.
How am I going to run two versions of Win2K on two separate partitions
at the same time?
>> although I would not be exercising the
>> applications since there would not be any.
>Even you should be able to install just a couple of apps for the TEST.
You don't realize that I would have to install more than just a couple
apps.
>> There is always the possibility that a rogue
>> application I am running is causing the problem.
>Unlikely since few apps directly manipulate the MFT, they leave that to the OS.
What about those that don't? I did say "rogue applocation".
I am just guessing so let's assume you are right and that is not the
problem.
>That is however why I suggested not using Perfect Disk
>for a while, in case it that thats corrupting the MFT.
PerfectDisk is very new - only a month or two old. This problem has
been going on for a year.
>> If I could get a stable baseline for the system,
>> then I could keep track of what I run each day.
>You dont need to have a stable baseline to do that.
Without a stable baseline, I can't be sure that any one variable is
contibuting.
>>> It'd be hilarious if it turns out to be those
>>> removable drive bays that are doing it.
>> I have no evidence to support that.
>Yes, but it would be worth trying the boot drive directly connected
>instead of in the removable drive bay to eliminate that possibility since
>we do know that you can get that result with removable drive bays.
If I connect it directly, then I have to mount it inside the machine.
Then when it gets corrupt I can't make it the D: drive without taking
it out.
Actually that is not quite true. My BIOS allows me to choose which
disk is the boot disk, so if I wanted the hard mount to be D:, I make
the disk in the tray the C:.
I may do just what you suggest - make one of the disks a hard mount
bypassing the tray. I may have a cabling problem because of the
location of the internal vs removable bay. However I have some
brackets to turn a 5 1/4: iinto a 3 1/2" so I could keep the disk in
the same position in the case.
>> If the removable bays were causing the trouble then I would
>> see the corruption happening at times other than reboot.
>You dont know that you dont get it at times other than a reboot.
U check EV all the time and have never seen it. However it may be that
it is not being detected except at boot. I can't run chkdsk whenever I
want - it must be run at boot. Is there some other diagnostic that can
detect a corrupt NTFS volume that I could schedule to run periodically
while Win2K is running?
>And even if it does only happen on a reboot, that proves nothing
>about what is doing that. If it only happens on a reboot, it cant be
>an app doing it, it has to be the OS or the hardware.
Good point, if it is only happening at boot.
>> Also, I would see it happening to the backup disk in D:
>Not necessarily.
>Anyone with a clue would try the boot drive directly connected and see if
>the corruption still occurs.
I had a good reason not to for which I found a good workaround.
> Bet you'll find a reason not to do that obvious test.
Your lost your bet. If I don't want to do something it is not because
I am lazy or obstinate - it's because I believe I have a good reason
not to. Of course I could be wrong, but until I realize that, I am not
going to go off into the weeds.
--
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:03:20 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>That is however why I suggested not using Perfect Disk
>for a while, in case it that thats corrupting the MFT.
PerfectDisk is very new - only a month or two old. This problem has
been going on for a year.
Something I just thought of. When I first started using PerfectDisk,
every once in a while it would cause the same corruption problem. I
knew because before I ran PD, I would reboot to make sure the volume
was not corrupt and then I would create a clone backup. Then I would
reboot and run PD and then reboot to see if it corrupted the disk,
Sure enough, a couple times it did and I had to use either the clone I
just made to recover or run chkdsk.
Speaking of clones I think I mentioned this but sometimes you may not
have picked up on it. If I put the clone in the D: without changing
the signature with Win98SE fdisk /mbr, it will always BSOD. That's
because Win2K tried to mount the same device to two disks with
identical signatures. If I use the trick of Win98SE fdisk /mbr on the
D: disk, then I do not get the BSOD. Of course Win2K prompts me to
reboot because it has found a "new device".
So let's imaging the scenario where I have a clone in archive which I
use as the boot disk when the original disk gets corrupted. I mount
this archived clone as the boot disk and mount the bad disk as D: so I
can run chkdsk d: /f on it. Since I changed the signature on the bad
disk to prevent the device conflict and BSOD, and if I don't reboot to
satisfy Win2K's request for a new device, then chkdsk will screw up
the bad disk and it is not recoverable. IOW, it can't even be mounted
any more.
--
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge
Re: Corrupt NTFS filesystem 