Software - - Problems with NTFS - Page 2

Ed_L · #16 12-09-2002, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by G. Couch
ED - If I am reading the info in David's link correctly (thanks D!) the 32GB only applies to Win2000 pro and XP pro.

Oh! I guess that makes a difference! For what it's worth, the partition was done with Partition Magic. My son-in-law set it up. That's beyond my level of expertise, but then, most things are.

Ed

d_kendal · #17 12-10-2002, 03:42 AM

I definitely with what you were saying about windows versions. they've done some nice improvements in XP (especially stability wise) and if they keep debugging it, I think within the next couple service packs, they could finally be closer to a bug free OS then they've ever been before.
I wish I had more time to play with Linux, but I always have a lot of work or projects that I'm busy with so since I loaded Mandrake 9, I haven't really been able to keep current with updates and programs that I would've liked to.
I'm not sure about you, but I actually like to have more smaller partitions better, since there are a couple advantages:
1. smaller cluster sizes (not really a big deal though)
2. Keeps things seperated better, for example I like to have my Windows partition (C

with *only* the OS loaded on it (and anything else always backed up) so if I have a problem, I can just wipe the partition and do a clean install without losing anything. I also like to keep all my programs, data, and a couple other things seperated from each other in their own partitions. I find it easier to keep things organized that way. I also have a partition for my Windows and PS scratch disks.
As for backups, I have to HDs so I back important things up on both drives plus on CD, and besides that I just periodically do backups of everything to CD. (usually rewritable's)
Thanks for the tip about the thumbnails, I had that in a couple of folders since I got sick of waiting for the windows picture and fax veiwer to load my images, but I changed it back to my regular setting (View> Details).
here's probably the best site I've found so far for problems with Windows: http://www.annoyances.org/
(their "Horoscopes " section is quite amusing

)

- David

jamtee23 · #18 12-18-2002, 01:59 PM

This is my first post so if things are not right, I'll do better in the future!

Kevin,
I think your NTFS problems are from the conversion from fat. I have been running NTFS on all my servers forever. All our desktops have been NTFS for the past year. I should say all our new desktops. We have been leaving the older ones as is. I believe the ones you have had to blow away and reformat well be fine. I am afraid the ones that were converted will continue to give you problems. This won't make your job any easier but I think that is why you are not finding much info on NTFS problems.

Joe

KevinBE · #19 12-18-2002, 08:17 PM

Hi Joe, I haven't done any conversions from FAT to NTFS. The images we create at work are from a scratch load of NT 4.0 on a bare drive. We began using NTFS because our data was exceeding the 2 Gig limit of FAT. A lot of our problems come from improper shutdowns which at times are unavoidable due to power failures and accidents. We weren't having this many problems running FAT and NTFS is supposed be able to recover from an improper shutdown better than FAT. Anyway by the end of 2003 we should be finished with the conversion to WinXP. Our desktop systems are so complicated with many vertical market and custom programs it's hard to compare our problems with others. We are a Novell shop and we are using the full implimentation of ZEN and Novell workstation manager. It just makes my job so much fun!

jamtee23 · #20 12-19-2002, 08:33 AM

Kevin,
Sorry, I misundersood. I have found NTFS to be less forgiving of improper shutdowns than fat or atleast no more forgiving. It is one of those Microsoft says one thing when reality is in another universe things! XP does seem to be pretty stable in my environment. Hope it turns out that way for you.

Joe

jaz · #21 12-19-2002, 02:35 PM

I suspect the problem is something else. I've been using it for years with not one single problem. Rockwell Automation (the company I work for) and thousands of mission critical firms are relying on it's reliability. Say what you want about XP's user interface but NTFS is ROCK-SOLID.

Jaz

jaz · #22 12-19-2002, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KevinBE
A lot of our problems come from improper shutdowns which at times are unavoidable due to power failures and accidents.

Corrupted boot tables are not related to NTFS. The Boot record is not written to during normal operation of XP so if you corrupted it, it's likely to be from a hardware related issue in which case the boot sectors would be corrupted, no matter what file system you are using.

KevinBE · #23 12-19-2002, 05:14 PM

Jaz, who said anything about boot tables? There are many different files that aren't part of the boot record that can become corrupted and stop Windows NT from loading. But while you bring this up NTFS like FAT and FAT32 control everything that is done to a partition, including the boot record. A corruption to the partition itself can effect any part of the data stored on that partition. The "boot strap" simply initiates the loading of a series of files that make up "Windows" or any other operating system.

I am glad your company is not having problems. My company is relativley trouble free also, our problems only efffect about 2% of the systems at any one given time. I think that figure should be lower especially considering the root cause. NTFS is not as stable as FAT32.

KevinBE · #24 12-19-2002, 08:11 PM

I wasn't acurate on my figures, 2% at any one given time is way too high. Our figures are probably closer to .5% in any given month.

jaz · #25 12-20-2002, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KevinBE

I am glad your company is not having problems. My company is relativley trouble free also, our problems only efffect about 2% of the systems at any one given time. I think that figure should be lower especially considering the root cause. NTFS is not as stable as FAT32.

NTFS is inherently much more complex that FAT 32 so in some circumstances it may not be as stable but it's being utilized by the military and NASA in mission-critical situations which are probably slightly more demanding than what most users are experiencing. Cluster and sector and partition errors due to the operating system's failure to "write-through" are an inherent part of the I/O cache and as such are not specific to NTFS.