Bad defrag broke system. Fixes?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Did the cleanup, started defrag and left overnight. Awoke to the WinXP light
blue screen that normally accompanies a chkdsk, but no activity or actual
displayed writing.

Hit reset, computer appears to boot, but hangs after the WinXP logo
disappears. Directory services restore doesn't appear to find disks C: and
E:, even though I only defragged E:.

Tried repair install, hangs on examining the RAID Array. Tried recovery
console, hangs on examining the RAID Array.

RAID 0 array, with 3 partitions, split into C: (Windows), D: (Pagefile), and
E: (Programs). Running on the VIA 8237 Integrated SATA Controller.

Any suggestions would be welcome.

 

[jolly]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Just don'te ever use the built in windows defragmenter and get a much better
one such as Diskeeper.

"Col. Firefly" wrote:

> Did the cleanup, started defrag and left overnight. Awoke to the WinXP light
> blue screen that normally accompanies a chkdsk, but no activity or actual
> displayed writing.
>
> Hit reset, computer appears to boot, but hangs after the WinXP logo
> disappears. Directory services restore doesn't appear to find disks C: and
> E:, even though I only defragged E:.
>
> Tried repair install, hangs on examining the RAID Array. Tried recovery
> console, hangs on examining the RAID Array.
>
> RAID 0 array, with 3 partitions, split into C: (Windows), D: (Pagefile), and
> E: (Programs). Running on the VIA 8237 Integrated SATA Controller.
>
> Any suggestions would be welcome.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Sounds like "something" broke the RAID array. "Something" did the same to me
when I tried to install XP SP2, and I wound up having to re-initialize the array
and start from scratch again. However, this time I went to RAID 1. FWIW,
though, I had used the XP defragger several times prior to that, and it worked
fine on the RAID 0 array.

It appears that current SATA RAID controllers (mine is Promise) are too fragile
for reliable RAID 0 operation with XP. If I were you, I'd change to RAID 1 or
10.

"Col. Firefly" wrote:
>
> Did the cleanup, started defrag and left overnight. Awoke to the WinXP light
> blue screen that normally accompanies a chkdsk, but no activity or actual
> displayed writing.
>
> Hit reset, computer appears to boot, but hangs after the WinXP logo
> disappears. Directory services restore doesn't appear to find disks C: and
> E:, even though I only defragged E:.
>
> Tried repair install, hangs on examining the RAID Array. Tried recovery
> console, hangs on examining the RAID Array.
>
> RAID 0 array, with 3 partitions, split into C: (Windows), D: (Pagefile), and
> E: (Programs). Running on the VIA 8237 Integrated SATA Controller.
>
> Any suggestions would be welcome.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Nope, the actual array is fine. Partition tables, boot sectors etc. are all
ok and functioning. It's the MFT which appears to be broken.

I used a NTFS DOS reader to look at the disk, and it dies about a quarter
way through reading the MFT. I hid the partition with Ghost, and it actually
booted into Windows, although it resets shortly after getting to the desktop,
probably trying to access a non-existant E: drive.

"John R Weiss" wrote:

> Sounds like "something" broke the RAID array. "Something" did the same to me
> when I tried to install XP SP2, and I wound up having to re-initialize the array
> and start from scratch again. However, this time I went to RAID 1. FWIW,
> though, I had used the XP defragger several times prior to that, and it worked
> fine on the RAID 0 array.
>
> It appears that current SATA RAID controllers (mine is Promise) are too fragile
> for reliable RAID 0 operation with XP. If I were you, I'd change to RAID 1 or
> 10.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Gee Ted, thanks for that wonderful and informative post.

Just quickly, exactly how many credentials *should* you need to defrag a
volume? MCSE maybe? Or MCP?

Defrag should be as pain free as possible. It *is* expected of the common
user to be able to perform it, and maybe this shows that there is a weakness
in NTFS that can be exploited. Or possibly improved upon?

"Ted Zieglar" wrote:

> "MS screwup?"
>
> Another case of the man who can't dance complaining that the band doesn't
> know how to play.
>
> Ted Zieglar

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

All defraggers use Microsoft defrag APIs to defrag the disk. The program just tells windows what files it wants where.

To allow defragmentation without requiring detailed knowledge of the disk structure of the file system, a set of three control codes is provided. These enable applications to locate empty clusters, determine the disk location of file clusters, and move clusters on the disk. They transparently handle the problem of inhibiting and allowing other processes to read from and write to files during moves.

These operations can be performed without inhibiting other processes from running. However, the other processes will have slower response times while a disk drive is being defragmented.

To defragment a file, use the following steps:

1.. Use the FSCTL_GET_VOLUME_BITMAP control code to find a place on the volume large enough to accept the entire file. If necessary, move other files to make a place that's large enough. Ideally, there will be enough unallocated clusters after the first extent of the file that you can simply move subsequent extents into the space after the first extent.
2.. Use the FSCTL_GET_RETRIEVAL_POINTERS control code to get a map of the current layout of the file on the disk.
3.. Walk the RETRIEVAL_POINTERS_BUFFER structure returned by FSCTL_GET_RETRIEVAL_POINTERS. Use the FSCTL_MOVE_FILE control code to move each cluster as you walk the structure. You may need to renew either the bitmap or the retrieval structure, or both, from time to time as other processes write to the disk.
Two of the operations used in the defragmentation process require a handle to a volume. Only administrators can obtain a handle to a volume, so only administrators can defragment a volume. Your program should check the privileges of the user attempting to run defragmentation software, and it should not execute if the user does not have the appropriate credentials.


--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Jolly" <Jolly@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:8BCFDAAD-A9CE-4AB5-AC4B-D27D65E9079B@microsoft.com...
> Just don'te ever use the built in windows defragmenter and get a much better
> one such as Diskeeper.
>
> "Col. Firefly" wrote:
>
>> Did the cleanup, started defrag and left overnight. Awoke to the WinXP light
>> blue screen that normally accompanies a chkdsk, but no activity or actual
>> displayed writing.
>>
>> Hit reset, computer appears to boot, but hangs after the WinXP logo
>> disappears. Directory services restore doesn't appear to find disks C: and
>> E:, even though I only defragged E:.
>>
>> Tried repair install, hangs on examining the RAID Array. Tried recovery
>> console, hangs on examining the RAID Array.
>>
>> RAID 0 array, with 3 partitions, split into C: (Windows), D: (Pagefile), and
>> E: (Programs). Running on the VIA 8237 Integrated SATA Controller.
>>
>> Any suggestions would be welcome.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"David Candy" <.> wrote...
All defraggers use Microsoft defrag APIs to defrag the disk. The program just
tells windows what files it wants where.

IIRC, the Symantec/Norton SpeedDisk defragger is one that does NOT use the Win
APIs, but uses its own.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

According to Raxco, Norton changed to the defrag APIs a while ago. But they did it too late for me. I now don't want their programs at all. I had speeddisk for NT but waited till XP came out to install it. It didn't work like all Norton's products, just blue screened. That's just theft.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"John R Weiss" <jrweiss98155@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message news:OV1QPEp8EHA.2676@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "David Candy" <.> wrote...
> All defraggers use Microsoft defrag APIs to defrag the disk. The program just
> tells windows what files it wants where.
>
> IIRC, the Symantec/Norton SpeedDisk defragger is one that does NOT use the Win
> APIs, but uses its own.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

What makes you think defrag had anything to do with your issue. Yoiu make unwarranted assumptions.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Col. Firefly" <ColFirefly@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:CD49BC83-D417-4A36-BA30-D52B42552CB5@microsoft.com...
> Gee Ted, thanks for that wonderful and informative post.
>
> Just quickly, exactly how many credentials *should* you need to defrag a
> volume? MCSE maybe? Or MCP?
>
> Defrag should be as pain free as possible. It *is* expected of the common
> user to be able to perform it, and maybe this shows that there is a weakness
> in NTFS that can be exploited. Or possibly improved upon?
>
> "Ted Zieglar" wrote:
>
>> "MS screwup?"
>>
>> Another case of the man who can't dance complaining that the band doesn't
>> know how to play.
>>
>> Ted Zieglar

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

That a faulty hard disk.

Backup, then use chkdsk /r from recovery console (autochk needs to be readable on the disk). See nothing to do with defrag.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Col. Firefly" <ColFirefly@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:06A59C72-12DC-41C2-8F19-8BDC1446696C@microsoft.com...
> Nope, the actual array is fine. Partition tables, boot sectors etc. are all
> ok and functioning. It's the MFT which appears to be broken.
>
> I used a NTFS DOS reader to look at the disk, and it dies about a quarter
> way through reading the MFT. I hid the partition with Ghost, and it actually
> booted into Windows, although it resets shortly after getting to the desktop,
> probably trying to access a non-existant E: drive.
>
> "John R Weiss" wrote:
>
>> Sounds like "something" broke the RAID array. "Something" did the same to me
>> when I tried to install XP SP2, and I wound up having to re-initialize the array
>> and start from scratch again. However, this time I went to RAID 1. FWIW,
>> though, I had used the XP defragger several times prior to that, and it worked
>> fine on the RAID 0 array.
>>
>> It appears that current SATA RAID controllers (mine is Promise) are too fragile
>> for reliable RAID 0 operation with XP. If I were you, I'd change to RAID 1 or
>> 10.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:02:18 -0800, "John R Weiss"

>If I were you, I'd change to RAID 1 or 10.

Dunno about RAID 10, but changing from RAID 0 to RAID 1 is like
trading in a sports car for a truck. The purposes are so different,
one has to wonder whether an ordinary car (i.e. no RAID at all) isn't
perhaps the better option.

RAID 0 uses two HDs as one, in the interests of speed. You get the
full capacity of both, but the risk is that if either HD fails, all is
lost. Plus there can be issues with RAID itself that can cause
breakage, as these posts seem to indicate.

RAID 1 uses two HDs as one, in the interests of data safety. You get
the capacity of one HD only, plus access is if anything slower than if
you just used one HD normally. The same data is written to both HDs,
so that if one fails, your data is still safe on the other HD.

No RAID at all means you get slightly more speed than RAID 1, double
the capacity of RAID 1, and no potential hassles from the RAID factor.
But if HD fails, there's no RAID 1 partner on which the data survives.



>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Cats have 9 lives, which makes them
ideal for experimentation!
>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Eh? Not what I heard.

While RAID 1 writes at the same speed as one drive, it will still read
faster than a single drive, because it can stripe a read operation across the
mirrors. Hence, mirroring is faster than a single drive. Most people are
more concerned about the cost of buying 2 HDDs but only getting the capacity
of one.

"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:02:18 -0800, "John R Weiss"
>
> >If I were you, I'd change to RAID 1 or 10.
>
> Dunno about RAID 10, but changing from RAID 0 to RAID 1 is like
> trading in a sports car for a truck. The purposes are so different,
> one has to wonder whether an ordinary car (i.e. no RAID at all) isn't
> perhaps the better option.
>
> RAID 0 uses two HDs as one, in the interests of speed. You get the
> full capacity of both, but the risk is that if either HD fails, all is
> lost. Plus there can be issues with RAID itself that can cause
> breakage, as these posts seem to indicate.
>
> RAID 1 uses two HDs as one, in the interests of data safety. You get
> the capacity of one HD only, plus access is if anything slower than if
> you just used one HD normally. The same data is written to both HDs,
> so that if one fails, your data is still safe on the other HD.
>
> No RAID at all means you get slightly more speed than RAID 1, double
> the capacity of RAID 1, and no potential hassles from the RAID factor.
> But if HD fails, there's no RAID 1 partner on which the data survives.
>
>
>
> >---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Cats have 9 lives, which makes them
> ideal for experimentation!
> >---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:57:02 -0800, Col. Firefly

>Eh? Not what I heard.

>While RAID 1 writes at the same speed as one drive, it will still read
>faster than a single drive, because it can stripe a read operation across the
>mirrors. Hence, mirroring is faster than a single drive.

Ah, that's an interesting point, though not too sure how it works in
practice when writes have to be done by both HDs at the same time.

What I read, referred to a slight speed decrease with RAID 1, due to
some sort of overhead.

It may go about how the RAID was implimented at the hardware, BIOS and
driver level, and whether RAID 1 compares data read from both HDs for
better data safety (normal error detection should make that redundant)

>Most people are more concerned about the cost of buying 2 HDDs
>but only getting the capacity of one.

Yep - and that most events that would kill a HD ("unnatural causes")
are liable to kill both HDs at once.



>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Cats have 9 lives, which makes them
ideal for experimentation!
>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -