Windows XP pro upgrade: ridiculously horrible - Page 2

Ardax · 01-25-2002, 01:41 PM

There's NTFS kernel drivers and tools available for linux here. I don't know if it's really a very closed format or if writing file system drivers is just really f'n difficult. I think that there's docs on MSDN detailing the various versions of the NTFS filesystem, but they may not be terribly useful.

They work. I use them at home. I've never tried mounting them read/write, because that apparently isn't done yet. You are strongly advised to run ntfsck after mounting an NTFS part r/w. I don't want my filesystems hosed. Someone else can do that.

verbatim, I've also noticed that 2k doesn't really play real nice with fat32 either. Or, it doesn't degrade nicely if anything crashes. Keep a 98 bootdisk handy with scandisk (or norton disk doctor) on it, you'll want to use it occasionally.

01-25-2002, 01:43 PM

r/w is where you'll run into problems. RO works (AFAIK - I've never tried it 'cause I have no reason to), but a RO filesystem isn't particularly useful to me anyway

Ardax · 01-25-2002, 01:51 PM

Of course, one could just get one of the various ext2 file system projects for Windows.

01-25-2002, 01:55 PM

I personally have switched to ext3 on my main box now. fsck SUCKS! I'm glad I did too, because with the CPU/Linux problem that's happening right now, my system was crashing about once a day - hard freezing. Now it hasn't done it in a few days, which is good. Still, though...

Ideally, Microsoft should just open up their file system format for interoperability's sake.

Undertoad · 01-25-2002, 02:51 PM

<i>I don't know if it's really a very closed format or if writing file system drivers is just really f'n difficult.</i>

I'm voting A. A filesystem format should be very easy to decode, right? Typically you'd have fixed lengths for most of the data in the directory, and anyone would be able to compare the filesystem from point A to point B. Having a filesystem format that's strangely complicated only invites corruption as developers try to keep up with it.

Ardax · 01-25-2002, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
<i>I don't know if it's really a very closed format or if writing file system drivers is just really f'n difficult.</i>

I'm voting A. A filesystem format should be very easy to decode, right? Typically you'd have fixed lengths for most of the data in the directory, and anyone would be able to compare the filesystem from point A to point B. Having a filesystem format that's strangely complicated only invites corruption as developers try to keep up with it.

I imagine that it's pretty wildly complex, considering the number and power of the features that are included in NTFS. After a 5 minute browse on MS's site, I could only find some general programming information (only slightly more useful than .h files). The linux-ntfs site has some pretty detailed docs though.

Reading data from NTFS wouldn't be too difficult, once you cracked the trick to reading the MFT and a some of the other uber-hidden files on an NTFS partition. Writing data back out that was actually consistent and didn't hose a dozen other things would probably be a nightmare though. There looks to be about half a dozen metadta files that have to be updated along with directory entries, the journal, and the file data itself. Most of these operations probably have to be atomic too. Then there's quotas, reparse points, compression, encryption, and all that cool shit that NTFS can do. Ugh.

tw · 01-25-2002, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Because it's a proprietary file system that Microsoft is less-than-willing to release the specs to.

Try http://www.systeminternals.com

jaguar · 01-27-2002, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Ive had my fare share of trouble going from 98 to 2k. Seems that the 2k kernel doesnt play nice on fat32 file systems

If oyu have amix of NTFS/fat32 is is awful, butpure fat32 on all drives its fine

tw · 01-28-2002, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
If oyu have amix of NTFS/fat32 is is awful, butpure fat32 on all drives its fine

Been doing NT before there was FAT32. Let's get one thing straight right off. FAT32 was a last minute kludge created because Windows 9x would not die. It suffers from problems created in FAT12 and FAT16. NTFS tends to be faster in most applications, is so much more stable (and so SCANDISK is not required), has numerous redundancies, and for some reason even keeps correcting problems (without any intervention on my part) on a 4 Gig disk is dying a slow, horrible death.

The problem is that tony had ME. He is not the first to deal with this new Windows 9x series to Windows NT series upgrade. It is made more complex by the few kludge hardware designs that were optimized only for Win 9x.

For example, to use any NT systems on some Toshiba laptops only two years ago, you first had to upgrade the BIOS. One must visit they web support to learn about that problem.

We routinely assume that a processor that runs Windows 9x will also run other OSes. But Windows 9x uses less functions. For example, it uses none of the protection rings. Is that part of the processor functional? Most likely yes, but the point remains that Windows NT OSes require functions never 'tested' by a Windows 9x system. How functional is all that hardware?

Bottom line - get rid of FAT if not required. NTFS is the upgrade of the upgrade (HPFS) from FATxx.

Classic FAT problem - while writing to a disk, power is lost. What happens. To an NTFS filesystem, the new data is lost and drive data remains intact. To a FAT file system, the new data and the old disk data are both lost. What happens if that was the registry or a directory index? Too bad. Those are just some of the reasons why those with Windows 9x suffer failures. How many recognized the Windows 9x system that no longer booted as a FAT32 problem? How many even knew of this glaring FAT problem?

I have numerous systems with NTFS and a small FAT partition. No problem except on one drive that is failing. I can't write to the FAT partition. The NTFS partition just gets so slow to access as NTFS uses tricks to recover the data. Avoid FAT filesystems.

jaguar · 01-28-2002, 05:36 AM

I know fat32 is fucking ugly, but i've tried both, and technicial aside, i'm sorry but it simply is faster.

NTFS support is mostly guessowrk under linux, and msft keep subtly changing it so its impossible to get it perfect. I had hell rescueing stuff off NTFS drives before.

ME btw is truely foul, and under no circumstnaces be put on anything, 98 is far better.

I looked at that site, where is NTFS stuff?
I tried win2k/NT infomation and source.

mbpark · 01-28-2002, 09:26 PM

What, no scandisk?

NTFS needs scandisk and defrag just as much as FAT32.

Why else would Microsoft do business with Scientologists to buy the code that defrags NTFS volumes (Executive Software Diskeeper) for 2000 and XP?

You can set Scandisk to run on 2000, NT, and XP at bootup, or if it's a non-system volume, at any time provided no services or apps are using the drive, if you want your data

.

However, you have to run them under 2000 and XP, and just as much as FAT32.

NTFS is an improvement on FAT32, however it's not XFS

tw · 01-28-2002, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
I looked at that site, where is NTFS stuff?
I tried win2k/NT infomation and source.

It been over a year since I reviewed their NTFS discussions. Their knowledge of NTFS is why they also have created NTFS diskette software, NTFS access from DOS, etc. The details of their information were for sale and also discussed in a magazine. Background for NTFS may have since expired. Last time I looked, they had information on the filesystem upgrade of NTFS under NT 5.0. Of course NT 5.0 was not released yet - to date when I last reviewed their NTFS application notes.

tw · 01-28-2002, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mbpark
What, no scandisk?
NTFS needs scandisk and defrag just as much as FAT32.

Scandisk was later added to DOS because of FAT problems traceable to the filesystem structure. NT does not require Scandisk. On a rare occasion, NT may run Chkdsk. But common problems in FATxx such as damaged FAT tables are not common with NTFS.

You would think that FAT32 would have corrected these problems. No effort was made to correct any FAT weaknesses in FAT32 because FAT32 was only a kludge and temporary solution to a Windows 9x that would not die on schedule.

FATxx is so unreliable that damage to the start of a disk can destroy both copies of critical index tables - loss of all files. Again NTFS shines. It places redundant copies in separte locations.

FAT also has problems that make it slower in larger filesystems. For example, index tables located where head seeks will typically take longest. NTFS places those index tables near center of the drive so that file access is milliseconds quicker.

Defrag for NTFS exists in freeware in that systeminternals web site or from Executive Software. I said nothing about Defrag. I noted that FATxx is so unreliable that Scandisk with its too many repair procedures was essential.

Microsoft makes it clear. FATxx loses its advantages once a partition exceeds 300 Mb. A partition of 1 Gbyte is typically faster in NTFS as well as more reliable.

As I noted, I do use small FAT partitions on some systems where DOS also executes. One of those systems contains two MFM (40 Mb) hard drives. Remember them? By todays standards, they are loud.

jaguar · 01-29-2002, 04:11 AM

tw, i think those utils (i looked at them, but not used) still use the internal drivers. I've accessed NTFS under linuxmyself, but its not an open system by a long shot. Mandrake does it out of the box, it was the only way i managed to rescue my box.

mbpark · 01-29-2002, 11:45 AM

Mark Russinovich (probably the best NT mind out there today) wrote them.

They do have one that allows you to recover an NT box over a serial line, and Win9x drivers for NTFS

.

There's even ext2fs drivers for Win9x/2K/NT.

However, you've GOT to defrag NTFS drives every so often. Take it from someone who runs database servers. Sybase, Oracle, and MS SQL Server need to get defragged a LOT for production-level servers if you're doing a lot of transactions under NTFS.

UNIX boxes don't have that issue because of raw partition support.

NTFS is better than FAT32, and scales extremely high. However, it's not totally there yet. Apparently DFS (coming in NT6) takes care of the fragmentation issue.

And yes, I know scandisk on 2K. I have a Zip drive on my workstation here. If I boot with a Zip drive, it runs Scandisk every time!

NTFS is darn good, and NTFS 5 is a heck of a sight better than NTFS 4, but it's not totally there yet.

01-28-2002, 05:36 AM	#25
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	I know fat32 is fucking ugly, but i've tried both, and technicial aside, i'm sorry but it simply is faster. NTFS support is mostly guessowrk under linux, and msft keep subtly changing it so its impossible to get it perfect. I had hell rescueing stuff off NTFS drives before. ME btw is truely foul, and under no circumstnaces be put on anything, 98 is far better. I looked at that site, where is NTFS stuff? I tried win2k/NT infomation and source. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain Last edited by jaguar; 01-28-2002 at 05:40 AM.

01-28-2002, 09:26 PM	#26
mbpark Lecturer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Carmel, Indiana Posts: 761	NTFS What, no scandisk? NTFS needs scandisk and defrag just as much as FAT32. Why else would Microsoft do business with Scientologists to buy the code that defrags NTFS volumes (Executive Software Diskeeper) for 2000 and XP? You can set Scandisk to run on 2000, NT, and XP at bootup, or if it's a non-system volume, at any time provided no services or apps are using the drive, if you want your data . However, you have to run them under 2000 and XP, and just as much as FAT32. NTFS is an improvement on FAT32, however it's not XFS

01-29-2002, 04:11 AM	#29
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	tw, i think those utils (i looked at them, but not used) still use the internal drivers. I've accessed NTFS under linuxmyself, but its not an open system by a long shot. Mandrake does it out of the box, it was the only way i managed to rescue my box. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

01-29-2002, 11:45 AM	#30
mbpark Lecturer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Carmel, Indiana Posts: 761	sysinternals tools Mark Russinovich (probably the best NT mind out there today) wrote them. They do have one that allows you to recover an NT box over a serial line, and Win9x drivers for NTFS . There's even ext2fs drivers for Win9x/2K/NT. However, you've GOT to defrag NTFS drives every so often. Take it from someone who runs database servers. Sybase, Oracle, and MS SQL Server need to get defragged a LOT for production-level servers if you're doing a lot of transactions under NTFS. UNIX boxes don't have that issue because of raw partition support. NTFS is better than FAT32, and scales extremely high. However, it's not totally there yet. Apparently DFS (coming in NT6) takes care of the fragmentation issue. And yes, I know scandisk on 2K. I have a Zip drive on my workstation here. If I boot with a Zip drive, it runs Scandisk every time! NTFS is darn good, and NTFS 5 is a heck of a sight better than NTFS 4, but it's not totally there yet.

01-25-2002, 01:41 PM	#16
Ardax Irrelevant Adulterant Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 43	There's NTFS kernel drivers and tools available for linux here. I don't know if it's really a very closed format or if writing file system drivers is just really f'n difficult. I think that there's docs on MSDN detailing the various versions of the NTFS filesystem, but they may not be terribly useful. They work. I use them at home. I've never tried mounting them read/write, because that apparently isn't done yet. You are strongly advised to run ntfsck after mounting an NTFS part r/w. I don't want my filesystems hosed. Someone else can do that. verbatim, I've also noticed that 2k doesn't really play real nice with fat32 either. Or, it doesn't degrade nicely if anything crashes. Keep a 98 bootdisk handy with scandisk (or norton disk doctor) on it, you'll want to use it occasionally.

01-25-2002, 01:43 PM	#17
dave Guest Posts: n/a	r/w is where you'll run into problems. RO works (AFAIK - I've never tried it 'cause I have no reason to), but a RO filesystem isn't particularly useful to me anyway

01-25-2002, 01:51 PM	#18
Ardax Irrelevant Adulterant Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 43	Of course, one could just get one of the various ext2 file system projects for Windows.

01-25-2002, 01:55 PM	#19
dave Guest Posts: n/a	I personally have switched to ext3 on my main box now. fsck SUCKS! I'm glad I did too, because with the CPU/Linux problem that's happening right now, my system was crashing about once a day - hard freezing. Now it hasn't done it in a few days, which is good. Still, though... Ideally, Microsoft should just open up their file system format for interoperability's sake.

01-25-2002, 02:51 PM	#20
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	<i>I don't know if it's really a very closed format or if writing file system drivers is just really f'n difficult.</i> I'm voting A. A filesystem format should be very easy to decode, right? Typically you'd have fixed lengths for most of the data in the directory, and anyone would be able to compare the filesystem from point A to point B. Having a filesystem format that's strangely complicated only invites corruption as developers try to keep up with it.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)