OS X question

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

NTFS, on the other hand, does. Severe cases of MFT fragmentation, can actually cause the system to not boot. IOW, NTFS can literally "paint itself into a corner". Just another way in which FAT32 is superior in its simplicity, lacking corner-cases that can lead to system failure.

Oh please, stop pointing to problems fixed like 5 years ago. Please provide a link that says that can happen with Win2K or hell even NT 4.

Windows NT Does Not Boot with Highly Fragmented MFT
MS documents that it can happen with NT4, but claims that it is fixed in W2K. I thought I've read other reports that it can still happen in W2K, I'll look further. I still consider the fact that it can happen at all, to be a form of design defect, myself.

Ok, found some more info. Executive Software, makers of the defrag util bundled by MS with their more recent NT-based OSes, themselves claim that both W2K and XP are still affected by the issue. (here)

Fragmentation is a major factor in slow boot times. Many cases are on record of machines taking twenty or thirty minutes to reboot that previously took only a minute or two. This situation can deteriorate to the point where a machine will take hours or not boot up at all. Once thought to affect only Windows 9X and NT, this is also seen on fragmented Windows 2000 and Windows XP systems.
According to Microsoft?s Knowledge Base Q228734, ?This issue can occur when the NTFS bootsector code contained in logical sector zero of an NTFS volume is unable to locate and load NTLDR into memory due to the Master File Table (MFT) being highly fragmented.?
Why does this occur? The NTFS bootsector code locates and loads NTLDR into memory. This involves reading the volume's MFT to obtain the root directory. When the MFT is highly fragmented, pieces of the MFT and other metadata that must be read in order to locate the NTLDR may fall outside the areas of the disk that can be read by the BIOS INT 13 routine. Thus the system fails to boot up.
Further Microsoft Knowledge Base (KB) articles outline additional manifestations of similar problems created by fragmentation. Microsoft KB article Q155892 covers the fact that the allocation for NTLDR?s $DATA attribute has become so fragmented that the whole $DATA attribute is no longer in the base FRS (file record segment). Microsoft KB article Q176968 explains another manifestation ? that when you attempt to boot with an NTFS system partition, the computer may hang after the power-on self-test (POST) and you may receive an error message stating that a kernel file is missing. This can occur if the NTFS disk structure data contained in the MFT is fragmented (as described above), actually preventing boot up.
Previously it was thought that this reliability problem had been eradicated in Windows 2000 and XP.

(bold emphasis mine)

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Also, if NTFS suffers from a failure, MS recommends restoring from a backup, because they can't guarantee the integrity of user data stored in files after an "improper shutdown event".

The same non-guarantees are made with FAT.

Exactly. So NTFS is no better in that regard.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
That I would agree with if it weren't for the fact that just about every OS can read NTFS just fine, it's the writing part that's tricky. So it's pretty simple to migrate from NTFS, it's just not possible to use it full time with a non-MS OS.

What good is an only half-supported filesystem? (read-only access) That isn't very useful for much, is it?
Meaning, NTFS is proprietary to MS, and incompatible with every other OS, other than NT.

Here's another interesting look at NTFS fragmentation, although a bit dated.

Hopefully my efforts will pay off and MS will fix the brain-dead cluster allocation routines in NTFS. Time will tell. If you agree with me and think MS needs to fix NTFS, please write them. Send some mail to some trade publications (PCWeek, INFOWORLD, NT Magazine, etc) and let them know about the fragmentation problem. Do whatever you can. NT is a great OS, but it does have its problems.

Edit: Even more here :

Defrag Manager Advanced Mode is an of?ine defragmentation environment designed to address special disk conditions, including:...
* Windows NT 4.0 and 2000 computers with excessive Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation, including systems rendered unbootable by this condition

 

[Nothinman]

MS documents that it can happen with NT4, but claims that it is fixed in W2K. I thought I've read other reports that it can still happen in W2K, I'll look further. I still consider the fact that it can happen at all, to be a form of design defect, myself.

You can believe what you want, but we've got over a thousand machines running Win2K with NTFS filesystems that have never shown that problem and some of them have been running for 3 or more years.

\ Exactly. So NTFS is no better in that regard.

And being that FAT is so technically inferior in other ways makes it a joke to consider it for anything more than a last resort.

What good is an only half-supported filesystem? (read-only access) That isn't very useful for much, is it?

Usefull enough to avoid vendor lock-in by letting you install a new OS and copy all of your data somewhere else.

Meaning, NTFS is proprietary to MS, and incompatible with every other OS, other than NT.

If you really care that much about NTFS write support you can either put in some time on the Linux NTFS project or just use Captive NTFS which uses the Windows NTFS.sys driver to get full read/write support.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

(I suppose, to make the analogy complete - a "Mac car" would have the engine compartment welded shut completely, with two indicator lights on the dash, one with a green happy-face, and one with a red unhappy-face. OS X would be a car based on a heavy-duty humvee chassis/frame, with a sleek ferrari-like minivan-sized body, and would cost more than both combined. )

I'm not sure if this refers to the hardware or the software, but either way it's wrong. Mostly.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
You can believe what you want, but we've got over a thousand machines running Win2K with NTFS filesystems that have never shown that problem and some of them have been running for 3 or more years.

Well, it obviously depends on the actual usage patterns. Certain patterns will tend to aggravate NTFS MFT fragmentation, and some will not. It doesn't automatically just up and die, of course, but the very fact that, in some specific cases, can, seems to be a serious design defect.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Usefull enough to avoid vendor lock-in by letting you install a new OS and copy all of your data somewhere else.

Ah, but you have to copy it - you can't simply use that data, at least not directly.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
If you really care that much about NTFS write support you can either put in some time on the Linux NTFS project or just use Captive NTFS which uses the Windows NTFS.sys driver to get full read/write support.

The latter of which is blatantly illegal, although perhaps widespread in the non-MS-OS camp.
(MS OS components are only licensed for use running on a licensed MS OS.)

 

[Nothinman]

Well, it obviously depends on the actual usage patterns. Certain patterns will tend to aggravate NTFS MFT fragmentation, and some will not. It doesn't automatically just up and die, of course, but the very fact that, in some specific cases, can, seems to be a serious design defect.

Well given the fact that I have never seen that happen in my entire life and I've had the displeasure of working on many machines inside and outside of work, I would say that if the machine does stop booting the chances are greater that it's a hardware problem than a real NTFS defect.

Ah, but you have to copy it - you can't simply use that data, at least not directly.

Sure you can use it, you just can't update it. That's like complaining that the ISO9660 filesystem is useless because you can't directly update files on it.

The latter of which is blatantly illegal, although perhaps widespread in the non-MS-OS camp.

Even so, it's probably a technically better solution than using FAT.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: hopejr

(I suppose, to make the analogy complete - a "Mac car" would have the engine compartment welded shut completely, with two indicator lights on the dash, one with a green happy-face, and one with a red unhappy-face. OS X would be a car based on a heavy-duty humvee chassis/frame, with a sleek ferrari-like minivan-sized body, and would cost more than both combined. )

ROFL. That's a funny one, but now with the completely user-serviceable iMac G5's, and even the PowerMac G5's, it's not quite accurate. Oh, and OS X doesn't cost as much as Windows, it's just the hardware

Actually if you want to know the PowerG4's were the easiest computers to work on, ever. Such a wonderfull case design. Not the nicest looking thing, but the internal layout was a 100x better then any x86 PC ever made.

I love my G4. I think the case is beautiful. Im going to do many upgrades to it, as soon as I am able to cough up the dough.