Corrupt NTFS filesystem

Citizen Bob wrote
(Citizen Bob) wrote

I have run chkdsk without "/f" many times and every time it reports
no corruption, even when a reboot causes chkdsk to run automatically.

Each time I ran chkdsk in the past I did not get a BSOD.

Not clear if you mean you ran it without the F or not. If you
ran it with the F, that conflicts with what you have previous
said, so presumably you mean you ran it without the F.

This time, however, I did get a BSOD upon reboot. And
this time, in contrast to all the other times, chkdsk without
an F did report corruption in the security descriptors.

This is the first time out of many times I have run
chkdsk without an F while Win2K was running that
I finally trapped BSOD condition before it happened.

OK, then its clear that whatever is producing the MFT corruption
is intermittent, and that makes it more likely its a hardware problem,
particularly when it cant be a particular app given that you can
produce MFT corruption by JUST running ImPerfect Disk and that
that is intermittent too, whether a PD run corrupts the MFT or not.

Because the corrupt disk was unbootable I mounted it as D:
and used another disk to boot. Fortunately the corrupt volume
did mount. Only once in the past did it fail to mount and I had
to restore a previous "archive" clone from NTBackup.

The fact that it did happen even once means that it can happen again.

In any event, here is the report from chkdsk with an F.
This kind of repair never happens when I don't get a
BSOD for a corrupt disk. IOW, this is major damage,
and that must be why chkdsk without an F caught it.

There isnt any evidence that chkdsk only reports
major damage when used without an F switch.

Have you actually done a binary comparison of the files
it claims to have fixed with the same file out of the archive ?

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:39:35 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Microsoft states that the pagefile should be 3 times the size of RAM.

No they dont. And they certainly do not say that it should be in a ram drive.

Where are you getting this crap about a "ram drive".

Its just plain barking mad to have that big a page file in physical
ram and MS certainly does NOT recommend that stupid config.

Once again you demonstrate just how little you really know about
Windows. Read this and learn something.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223/en-us

+++
Pagefile

RAM is a limited resource, whereas virtual memory is, for most
practical purposes, unlimited. There can be a large number of
processes each with its own 2 GB of private virtual address space.
When the memory in use by all the existing processes exceeds the
amount of RAM available, the operating system will move pages (4 KB
pieces) of one or more virtual address spaces to the computer’s hard
disk, thus freeing that RAM frame for other uses. In Windows systems,
these "paged out" pages are stored in one or more files called
pagefile.sys in the root of a partition. There can be one such file
in each disk partition. The location and size of the page file is
configured in SystemProperties, Advanced, Performance (click the
Settings button).

A frequently asked question is how big should I make the pagefile?
There is no single answer to this question, because it depends on the
amount of installed RAM and how much virtual memory that workload
requires. If there is no other information available,

***the normal recommendation of 1.5 times the amount of RAM in the
computer is a good place to start.***

On server systems, a common objective is to have enough RAM so that
there is never a shortage and the pagefile is essentially, not used.
On these systems, having a really large pagefile may serve no useful
purpose. On the other hand, disk space is usually plentiful, so aving
a large pagefile (e.g. 1.5 times the installed RAM) does not cause a
problem and eliminates the need to fuss over how large to make it.
+++

And even you should be able to test the normal config with
the page file on a physical drive and see if that makes any
difference to the MFT corruption now that you have said that
you can get MFT corruption when using ImPerfect Disk alone.

And even you should be able to read the Microsoft KB.


--

"First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the
world."
--Clarence Darrow

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:42:43 GMT, (Citizen Bob) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:22:11 GMT, (Citizen Bob) wrote:

Each time I ran chkdsk in the past I did not get a BSOD. This time,
however, I did get a BSOD upon reboot. And this time, in contrast to
all the other times, chkdsk without an F did report corruption in the
security descriptors.


This is a followup to the BSOD I just reported.

I repaired the corrupt volume as you saw in the last post. Then I
booted it and it started just fine - no automatic chkdsk. I then ran
chkdsk without the F and it reported a corrupt MFT and recommended I
run chkdsk with an F. Here is the report:

This is another followup to the above post.

I cloned the current drive with Acronis TI and then I ran Win98 fdisk
/mbr on the new clone to clear the first 4 bytes of the disk
signature. Then I booted the new clone and Win2K said there was a new
device and to reboot. The EV had the following:

+++
Event Type: Error
Event Source: Service Control Manager
Event Category: None
Event ID: 7026
Date: 10/30/2006
Time: 3:10:35 PM
User: N/A
Computer: RCK
Description:
The following boot-start or system-start driver(s) failed to load:
PCLEPCI
+++

After I rebooted as instructed by Win2K, there was no further
reference in EV about any PCLEPCI. Apparently when Win2K tries to load
a new device, it screws up PCLEPCI.


--

"First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the
world."
--Clarence Darrow

Citizen Bob wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Citizen Bob wrote

Microsoft states that the pagefile should be 3 times the size of RAM.

No they dont. And they certainly do not
say that it should be in a ram drive.

Where are you getting this crap about a "ram drive".

You said

Especially since I am running a 2 GB pagefile in memory.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...ae14937b12957a

Its just plain barking mad to have that big a page file in physical
ram and MS certainly does NOT recommend that stupid config.

Once again you demonstrate just how little you really know about Windows.

We'll see, again...

Read this and learn something.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223/en-us

+++
Pagefile

RAM is a limited resource, whereas virtual memory is, for most
practical purposes, unlimited. There can be a large number of
processes each with its own 2 GB of private virtual address space.
When the memory in use by all the existing processes exceeds the
amount of RAM available, the operating system will move pages (4 KB
pieces) of one or more virtual address spaces to the computer’s hard
disk, thus freeing that RAM frame for other uses. In Windows systems,
these "paged out" pages are stored in one or more files called
pagefile.sys in the root of a partition. There can be one such file
in each disk partition. The location and size of the page file is
configured in SystemProperties, Advanced, Performance (click the
Settings button).

A frequently asked question is how big should I make the pagefile?
There is no single answer to this question, because it depends on the
amount of installed RAM and how much virtual memory that workload
requires.

So much for your stupid pig ignorant claim that MS actually says
to have the page file 3 times bigger than the amount of physical ram.

If there is no other information available,

You cant ignore that, stupid.

***the normal recommendation of 1.5 times the amount
of RAM in the computer is a good place to start.***

Doesnt even say that stupid 3 times you claim.

On server systems, a common objective is to have
enough RAM so that there is never a shortage and
the pagefile is essentially, not used. On these systems,
having a really large pagefile may serve no useful purpose.

Funny that.

On the other hand, disk space is usually plentiful, so aving a large
pagefile (e.g. 1.5 times the installed RAM) does not cause a
problem and eliminates the need to fuss over how large to make it.
+++

Nothing even remotely resembling anything like what you pig
ignorantly claimed about what MS says to have page file wise.

AND your stupid pig ignorant claim about THREE TIMES doesnt even get a mention.

And even you should be able to test the normal config with
the page file on a physical drive and see if that makes any
difference to the MFT corruption now that you have said that
you can get MFT corruption when using ImPerfect Disk alone.

And even you should be able to read the Microsoft KB.

Yep, pity it doesnt say anything even remotely resembling
anything like that lie of yours now right at the top.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:31:14 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

***the normal recommendation of 1.5 times the amount
of RAM in the computer is a good place to start.***

Doesnt even say that stupid 3 times you claim.

Picky, picky.


--

"First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the
world."
--Clarence Darrow

Citizen Bob wrote
Rod Speed wrote

***the normal recommendation of 1.5 times the amount
of RAM in the computer is a good place to start.***

Doesnt even say that stupid 3 times you claim.

Picky, picky.

Pathetic, pathetic.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:43:11 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

***the normal recommendation of 1.5 times the amount
of RAM in the computer is a good place to start.***

Doesnt even say that stupid 3 times you claim.

Picky, picky.

Pathetic, pathetic.

It says "good place to start". Every good engineer knows to double
minimum specifications to include a margin for error.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

yawn

--

"First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the
world."
--Clarence Darrow

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:27:22 GMT, (Citizen Bob) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:30:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

He's so stupid that he cant even manage to work out what
chkdsk is about and how to check whether corruption of the MFT
is actually happening at other than boot time or shutdown time.

You really are a stupid bonehead, aren't you.

I just ran chkdsk without an F inside Win2K, and it reported NO
problems whatsoever. EV did not show any problems either.

I then rebooted and Win2K automatically ran chkdsk with an F during
the boot process. There were some security descripters that were
repaired but nowhere near the number that typically get repaired when
I get a BSOD. There was no repair of the MFT or anything else.

Once I was in Win2K (the repair was successful) EV showed a corrupt
NTFS volume had occurred between shutdown and reboot.

So much for running chkdsk without an F. It is worthless, as I had
determined before. But you insisted I do it, so maybe now you have
learned more about Windows at my expense.

Next time listen to me. Enough of the merry chases - if you don't know
how to fix this problem, then admit it. Maybe then you will use your
analytical skills to look at the data I am providing instead of
indulging your considerable prejudices.


--

"First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the
world."
--Clarence Darrow

Citizen Bob wrote
Rod Speed wrote

***the normal recommendation of 1.5 times the amount
of RAM in the computer is a good place to start.***

Doesnt even say that stupid 3 times you claim.

Picky, picky.

Pathetic, pathetic.

It says "good place to start".

It ACTUALLY says

IF THERE IS NO OTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE

you pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying bull**** artist.

In fact we know that with Win2K with 512MB of physical
ram, you dont need anything like 2G of page file, or 1.5G
either, and its completely trivial for anyone with a clue to
check how much of the page file is actually used by that
system and discover that its nothing like 2G, or 1.5G either.

AND in the next para it ALSO says

On server systems, a common objective is to have enough RAM so
that there is never a shortage and the pagefile is essentially, not used.
On these systems, having a really large pagefile may serve no useful purpose.

Corse you are such a bone head that you cant manage to read and
comprehend such simple advice, or even consider the basics for yourself,
that the more physical ram you have, the LESS page file you need.

It may make some sense to initially try a page of 1.5 times the
physical ram with a 64M Win2K system, but it makes absolutely no
sense whatever to have a 2G page file with 512MB of physical ram.

Every good engineer knows to double minimum
specifications to include a margin for error.

Pity it isnt even the minimum specification,
you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

No wonder you got the bums rush.

Citizen Bob wrote
Rod Speed wrote

He's so stupid that he cant even manage to work out what
chkdsk is about and how to check whether corruption of the MFT
is actually happening at other than boot time or shutdown time.

You really are a stupid bonehead, aren't you.

Cant even manage its own lines, or anything else at all, either.

I just ran chkdsk without an F inside Win2K, and it reported NO
problems whatsoever. EV did not show any problems either.

And that indicates that the corruption didnt
occur with normal ops at that time, stupid.

I then rebooted and Win2K automatically ran chkdsk with an F during
the boot process. There were some security descripters that were
repaired but nowhere near the number that typically get repaired
when I get a BSOD. There was no repair of the MFT or anything else.

And that indicates that either the shutdown or the boot
process may well have been what corrupted the MFT, stupid.

Once I was in Win2K (the repair was successful) EV showed a
corrupt NTFS volume had occurred between shutdown and reboot.

Must be one of those rocket scientist stupids.

So much for running chkdsk without an F. It is worthless,

Pity you stupidly claimed that it wasnt possible to run chkdsk to
determine whether corruption was occurring during normal ops or
whether it was occuring during shutdown or boot. YOU WERE WRONG.

as I had determined before.

Lying, as always.

But you insisted I do it,

Lying, as always. I JUST RUBBED YOU NOSE IN THE FACT THAT
YOUR CLAIM THAT IT WASNT POSSIBLE TO RUN CHKDSK AT
OTHER THAN BOOT TIME WAS CLEARLY JUST PLAIN WRONG.

so maybe now you have learned more about Windows at my expense.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Next time listen to me.

No way, you're so stupid that you couldnt even manage to work out how
to run chkdsk at other than boot time to see if the MFT gets corrupted at
other than reboot time and you're so stupid that you cant even manage to
work out that the only viable option when you terminal stupidity is exposed
for the world to laugh at, that the only viable option is to keep your silly trap
shut and hope that everyone forgets that terminal stupidity as quickly as possible.

Enough of the merry chases - if you don't know how to fix this problem, then admit it.

I do know how to systematically eliminate the possibiltys on what is
corrupting the MFT thanks, and I also know what is the most efficient
sequence to test, first starting with the test that require minimal effort.

You're so stupid and bone headed that you cant manage something
as basic as that ? YOUR problem. You're the one that will have to
spend the next year or two manually fixing the corruption that you
claim happens every week and the high level of backups by cloning that
you need to do when the MFT is getting corrupted at that rate.

Maybe then you will use your analytical skills to look at the data
I am providing instead of indulging your considerable prejudices.

There are no magic wands to wave with the pathetically inadequate
description of the config of your system. The only viable option is to
systematically eliminate the possibilitys, and even someone as stupid
as you should be able to grasp that 3 of those WILL TAKE MUCH
LESS EFFORT THE STUPID APPROACH YOU HAVE CHOSEN
TO TAKE FOR A WHOLE YEAR NOW TO KLUDGE AROUND
THAT VERY FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM YOU HAVE.

No wonder you got the bums rush, even they noticed how useless you are.