Problems with NTFS

[jeaniesa]

Glad that worked Kevin! From my experience, you most likely did NOT transfer the problem to the new location, but you may have a couple problems here and there. Not like the old location where it crashed every time however.

I have to admit I'm disheartened to hear of this happening in WXP Pro. My problems like this were in W2K and I upgraded hoping that I'd get rid of them. Unfortunately, I never figured out exactly what caused the problems. It always seemed to happen after along day of working in PS7 with my scanner and/or printer (and Graphire tablet of course.) The last time it happened, it appeared to trash the partition info of my main drive, i.e. I couldn't install Windows over itself b/c the boot CD didn't recognize the C: partition. I could boot Windows and it would recognize it just fine though. I sure hope I don't run into that situation again. I didn't lose any data - just lots and lots of time trying to figure out what the heck was going on!

Jeanie

[KevinBE]

Unfortunately Jeanie, what we are dealing with in Win XP is Win NT version 6. Microsoft has tried to convince everyone that NTFS is a better file system. I have found the oposite to be true. Most of the users I support at work are running Win NT 4.0. For a long time we ran NT on a FAT partition so we could maintain compatibility with some of our legacy systems. About 6 months ago we were forced to move to NTFS and service pack 6. Now we fight Windows file corruptions all the time which usually require reloads. We never had these problems under the FAT partitions. These things are not supposed to happen with NTFS, at least according to Microsoft. We are rolling out XP this month, I don't look forward to dealing with it.

ugot2bkdng, I have learned to remove the tablet when I am not using it in Photoshop. It really causes problems with my Microsoft 4 button mouse, which I can't surf without. Guess I am spoiled.

[KevinBE]

Getting rid of those folders didn't help at all. Guess I will limp along until I do the hardware upgrades.

[d_kendal]

Hey Kevin,

that stinks about losing you're downloads folder. could you have possibly been pressing down the shift key when you accidentally deleted the folder? if so, that deletes the files/folders without sending them to the recycle bin first, which may have been what happened. I'm not a fan of NTFS either. when I got my computer, WinXP was loaded on an NTFS partition, and I had all kinds of problems which may have been related. when I installed Linux, I did a reformat and reinstall of windows on FAT32 partitions, since Linux can't write to NTFS ones. When I put in a second 40 Gig drive, I formatted those partitions with FAT 32 also, and since then I haven't had any of the problems I had when I was using NTFS and it's been very reliable.

- David

[KevinBE]

Hi David. I didn't completely lose the files. I found the directories down under the My Music folder. I was bitten by the drag & drop feature. Just didn't know where they were because I couldn't search for them. The search I ran as administrator didn't crash until after it found them, I saw them just in time. What I have now is a damaged file system that scandisk doesn't see any problems with. There aren't any other symptoms except that I can't search using the word "download". All I have lost is the time I spent trying to solve the problem.

I'm going to invest in a copy of Partition Magic and Norton System Works to see if I can prevent this from happening again. If I can help it my next load of XP will not be using NTFS. But I don't know what my options will be with my new 80 Gig drives.

I wish Linux was a little more mature. I have Mandrake 8.0 running on an old Pentium 200 Compaq Deskpro. I don't have enough power to use it very much, it is mostly just my WAN router connection to my cable modem. KDE boggs it down fairly well. There are just too many Windows applications that I can't live without.

[d_kendal]

good to hear you didn't completely lose them at least!
With your 80 GB drives, using FAT32 should be fine if you partition them. I can't remember right now what the maximum partition size FAT32 supports is.
I know what you mean about linux, if the Windows emulation was much better, if I could get 32 bit color, and graphics acceleration, and a couple other things I couldn't live without, then I'd switch right over, but Linux still has a way to go unfortunately. KDE is quite a hog as Linux GUIs go actually, have you tried any others like Windowmaker? one of those might work better on an older machine like that.

- David

[KevinBE]

No I haven't tried Windowmaker that sounds interesting. I have only tried KDE and Gnome. I will say this their interfaces keep getting easier to configure. The first version I tried was Red Hat 6.0. Setting up the router and Samba was a real trip. The Mandrake 8.0 was all menu driven and I hear the latest versions are even easier. If they keep it up they may be a contender yet. I know that IBM and HP are putting a lot of money into Linux development. I'll bet my Athlon XP 2100 with a gig of ram would fly in Linux.

[G. Couch]

Note - this thread is split off from this thread in the Hardware forum...hence the rather strange initial post


Is there anything in the works to replace both FAT32 and NTFS?

[d_kendal]

Yeah, the interface is where the biggest improvements are happening right now. I started out using SuSE 7.2 and from there I've tried a couple versions of mandrake and also Red Hat. Mandrake has the reputation of being easiest to use and configure, and they deserve it, they've done a lot of hard work on it. Right now I've got Mandrake 9.0 loaded, and it's very easy to use, I even managed to get my DSL connected. I haven't done any networking in Linux yet, but I hope Samba's getting easier to configure, since I'll be setting up a network with a broadband router to my computer (winXP, my dad's new computer (Win98), and his old one to use as a server (I'll be loading Mandrake on it).
Linux is pretty darn fast even with my Celeron 950 Mhz (512 megs SD ram)

- David

[d_kendal]

Originally posted by G. Couch
Is there anything in the works to replace both FAT32 and NTFS? [/B]

I searched around a bit and couldn't find anything, does anybody else know about any new file systems that are being worked on?

Kevin - I did a bit of reading, and the only issue you should run into by using FAT32 on your 80 gig drive is that you're partitions can't be any bigger than 32 GBs. here's come good info.

- David

[jeaniesa]

Well Kevin, I have to say I wish this discussion had taken place a month ago! (Before I spent tons of money on a new computer! I thought that perhaps my newer peripherals with the older motherboard was causing some sort of conflict that I couldn't find.) I just partitioned and reformatted (with NTFS except for one 5G partition) both of my hard drives when I installed XP. I've had the system running for about two weeks now with no problem, but I haven't stressed it (with 10-12 hours of scanning/photoshopping) that caused the problems with my last W2K system. If the problem shows up again though, I'll be seriously considering reformatting the problem partitions with FAT32!

Strangely enough, when I presented my problem to the Experts Exchange, no one even so much at hinted that the problem was NTFS. You're the first person to suggest that to me - and I'm extremely grateful! Not that I wish problems on anyone else, but it's nice to know I'm not alone in this experience!!

Jeanie

[Ed_L]

Originally posted by d_kendal

Kevin - I did a bit of reading, and the only issue you should run into by using FAT32 on your 80 gig drive is that you're partitions can't be any bigger than 32 GBs. here's come good info.

- David

Am I missing something here? I have a 60 gig hard drive with a small partition, and another at 52.3 GB. It's FAT32.

Ed

[KevinBE]

Hi Greg, I certainly hope that there isn't anything new from Microsoft for a while. I am sick and tired of them comming out with new versions of Windows when they always fail to debug the current version. I know it is more profitable to work on and release new versions than to spend the programming time debugging the current version. They need to give us a break and fix what they have!

David, I wish I had the time to upgrade my Linux box. I just have too much going on right now. I was forced to upgrade to Mandrake 8 after my Redhat 6 server was hacked and taken down. I really need the extra insurance that the new kernal offers. I just don't have the time with all I am trying to do with restoration.

I am going to get Partition magic 8.0 and see what it will allow me to do. They seem to have some utilities that help with protecting NTFS partitions. I will just have to make that decission when I get to that point. I really don't want a bunch of smaller partitions. If I can impliment a dependable backup system that I wont forget to run whenever I need to run it, I may just take my chances on NTFS again. Thanks for the info on the partition size, I was aware of it but hoped that Partition Magic had found a way around it. From what I have read apparently they haven't.

Jeanie, I had hoped that Microsoft would fix NTFS with their implimentation of XP. It doesn't look as though they even tried. All I can say is do regular backups and that should include some method of doing a partition backup using Powerquest Drive image or Ghost or something like that. Do seperate backups of all your important data using a different method. I mirror all my digital images to another hard drive drive and to CDROM.

I'm like you I haven't heard very many people talk about the problems with NTFS, I wish I knew why. I was led to believe that this was a bullet proof file system because of the redundant directory table backups it does. I just fixed another NT 4.0 machine this afternoon. It just all of the sudden started booting to a file missing/coruption error and a physical memory core dump. Absolutely dead in the water, it worked one minute and then boom, it was gone. Nothing wrong with the hardware, restored an image backup and it was back like it was. NTFS isn't supposed to allow this to happen.

I'll give everyone a word of advice about XP. Don't fall into the temptation of letting XP display your directories full of digital images as thumbnails, expecially if there are several hundred of them in one directory. That is where I have had the most problems on my XP box. The first 2 problems I had were because of this. Some reason the thumbs index file will get trashed and you will lose access to the directory completely! Believe me this has happened to me twice. Every time explorer tried to display the broken directory it would crash, and so would Photoshop. The only way I could salvage my files was to go to a system prompt and copy all the files to a new directory and delete the old directory. I also had this problem when I was running Win2000.

Guess I'll get off my soap box now.

[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.

[KevinBE]

I think that partitions larger than 32 Gig are possible if they are created and formated using Win98. If I read it right XP & 2000 cannot format partitions larger than 32 Gig. I don't know this for sure as I haven't tried it myself but I am going to try it on my new system. I hope it works.

[Ed_L]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.