If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Power failure during Windows 7 defrag (x64 Ultimate edition)
Hi all,
Yesterday night, my Windows 7 started a disk defragmentation (Windows 7 defaultly scheduled a disk defrag once a week). Unfortunately, the Murphy's law was verified once again : the defrag started at 1:00 AM and my house had a general power failure at 1:10 AM in the middle of the C:\ defrag. Hopefully, I was able to reboot. I planned a CHKDSK from Windows 7 which successfully executed (upon next reboot). I did not find yet how to get the report (generated at boot time) but I read that I could get it from the Event Viewer in a Wininit event. Anyway, my system reboot fine and I do not notice any instability. * Is the CHKDSK execution enough ? Is there anything more that I should do ? * I read that NTFS based file systems could not be corrupted even if a crash or power failure occurred in the middle of a defrag process or any write operation ? Is it true ? Thanks in advance. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Power failure during Windows 7 defrag (x64 Ultimate edition)
On 03/08/11 16:42, Castor Nageur wrote:
Hi all, Yesterday night, my Windows 7 started a disk defragmentation (Windows 7 defaultly scheduled a disk defrag once a week). Defragging is almost always close to useless, and is certainly not worth doing once a week. Just because it is a Windows default, does not mean it makes sense. Unfortunately, the Murphy's law was verified once again : the defrag started at 1:00 AM and my house had a general power failure at 1:10 AM in the middle of the C:\ defrag. Hopefully, I was able to reboot. I planned a CHKDSK from Windows 7 which successfully executed (upon next reboot). I did not find yet how to get the report (generated at boot time) but I read that I could get it from the Event Viewer in a Wininit event. Anyway, my system reboot fine and I do not notice any instability. * Is the CHKDSK execution enough ? Is there anything more that I should do ? No, the defragmentation is pretty safe. It is not always /entirely/ safe in the event of a power failure or crash - no operation on the disk is. But if chkdsk is happy, your filesystem is at least consistent. There is perhaps a small chance that some data in a file has been damaged, but it's unlikely. Don't worry about it. * I read that NTFS based file systems could not be corrupted even if a crash or power failure occurred in the middle of a defrag process or any write operation ? Is it true ? It is not true - you certainly /can/ get corruption on NTFS from crashes or power failures, but they don't happen often. NTFS has metadata journalling, and is reasonably robust - corruptions are rare, but only an MS sycophant would claim they /cannot/ happen. The same journalling is used during defrag, and gives the same protection. There is also always a small chance of a more physical or electrical problem with a disk during power failures, especially if there is a period with poor-quality power (power that comes and goes, single-phase failures, etc.). But in general, if you don't see any problems, be happy. Thanks in advance. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Power failure during Windows 7 defrag (x64 Ultimate edition)
Castor Nageur wrote:
Hi all, Yesterday night, my Windows 7 started a disk defragmentation (Windows 7 defaultly scheduled a disk defrag once a week). Unfortunately, the Murphy's law was verified once again : the defrag started at 1:00 AM and my house had a general power failure at 1:10 AM in the middle of the C:\ defrag. Hopefully, I was able to reboot. I planned a CHKDSK from Windows 7 which successfully executed (upon next reboot). I did not find yet how to get the report (generated at boot time) but I read that I could get it from the Event Viewer in a Wininit event. Anyway, my system reboot fine and I do not notice any instability. * Is the CHKDSK execution enough ? Is there anything more that I should do ? I don't think so. * I read that NTFS based file systems could not be corrupted even if a crash or power failure occurred in the middle of a defrag process or any write operation ? Is it true ? Very likely untrue, as that would require a perfect implementation and a reliable flush-to-disk. In particular the second is not done on consumer grade disks, as the Linux kernel folks found out when they decided to not trust the specification but actually try it out. As it turns typical consumer disks can return from a write with disk-buffer flush _before_ the data is on disk. This is an exceedingly stupid thing to do by the HDD manufacturers, but hardly the first time they messed up. The most important practical consequence is that for reliable database commits you either have to use HDDs with buffer turned off (very slow, may be acceptable if you just put the DB journal on it), working flush (SCSI or SAS may have this as one of the very few advantages) or an UPS with orderly shut-down in case of power fail and generous waiting times before power is withdrawn from the disks after the flush command (should be standard on modern OSes). As to a perfect implementation, Microsoft is unlikely to have achieved that. That said, it typically works nonetheless, as in 99% or so of the time. Unlike FAT, NTFS is a lot harder to mess up. If CHKDSK does not complain you should be fine. Arno -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F ---- Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Power failure during Windows 7 defrag (x64 Ultimate edition)
On 08/03/2011 10:40 AM, Arno wrote:
Castor wrote: Hi all, Yesterday night, my Windows 7 started a disk defragmentation (Windows 7 defaultly scheduled a disk defrag once a week). Unfortunately, the Murphy's law was verified once again : the defrag started at 1:00 AM and my house had a general power failure at 1:10 AM in the middle of the C:\ defrag. Hopefully, I was able to reboot. I planned a CHKDSK from Windows 7 which successfully executed (upon next reboot). I did not find yet how to get the report (generated at boot time) but I read that I could get it from the Event Viewer in a Wininit event. Anyway, my system reboot fine and I do not notice any instability. * Is the CHKDSK execution enough ? Is there anything more that I should do ? I don't think so. * I read that NTFS based file systems could not be corrupted even if a crash or power failure occurred in the middle of a defrag process or any write operation ? Is it true ? Very likely untrue, as that would require a perfect implementation and a reliable flush-to-disk. In particular the second is not done on consumer grade disks, as the Linux kernel folks found out when they decided to not trust the specification but actually try it out. As it turns typical consumer disks can return from a write with disk-buffer flush _before_ the data is on disk. This is an exceedingly stupid thing to do by the HDD manufacturers, but hardly the first time they messed up. The most important practical consequence is that for reliable database commits you either have to use HDDs with buffer turned off (very slow, may be acceptable if you just put the DB journal on it), working flush (SCSI or SAS may have this as one of the very few advantages) or an UPS with orderly shut-down in case of power fail and generous waiting times before power is withdrawn from the disks after the flush command (should be standard on modern OSes). As to a perfect implementation, Microsoft is unlikely to have achieved that. That said, it typically works nonetheless, as in 99% or so of the time. Unlike FAT, NTFS is a lot harder to mess up. If CHKDSK does not complain you should be fine. Arno My understanding is that ZFS is pretty robust, even on somewhat shoddy disks. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Power failure during Windows 7 defrag (x64 Ultimate edition)
Defragging is almost always close to useless, and is certainly not worth doing once a week. Just because it is a Windows default, does not mean it makes sense. My experience is the opposite. An NTFS computer will be noticeably slower after some months. -- Ed Light Better World News TV Channel: http://realnews.com Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related: http://ivaw.org http://couragetoresist.org http://antiwar.com Send spam to the FTC at Thanks, robots. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Power failure during Windows 7 defrag (x64 Ultimate edition)
On 03/08/2011 10:42 AM, Castor Nageur wrote:
* I read that NTFS based file systems could not be corrupted even if a crash or power failure occurred in the middle of a defrag process or any write operation ? Is it true ? Thanks in advance. Yeah, NTFS is a journalled filesystem, the defrag process would just get replayed back to it's most recent write operation. Nothing gets erased until it is overwritten. Data will remain in its original location until then. Yousuf Khan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Power failure during Windows 7 defrag (x64 Ultimate edition)
Ed Light wrote
Defragging is almost always close to useless, and is certainly not worth doing once a week. Just because it is a Windows default, does not mean it makes sense. My experience is the opposite. Like hell it is. An NTFS computer will be noticeably slower after some months. Pity a defrag makes no difference and you couldnt pick that in a randomised double blind trial with you not being allowed to run a ute that displays fragmentation. And the reason for that is that **** all that most do on their desktop systems are affected at all by the very fast seek between fragments on modern systems and most stuff like playing media files isnt affected at all and thats about the only linear processing of large files most ever do on modern desktop systems. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Power failure during Windows 7 defrag (x64 Ultimate edition)
On 04/08/11 00:33, Ed Light wrote:
Defragging is almost always close to useless, and is certainly not worth doing once a week. Just because it is a Windows default, does not mean it makes sense. My experience is the opposite. An NTFS computer will be noticeably slower after some months. Well, an NTFS computer is by definition a Windows computer, so this should not come as a big surprise! Seriously, defragging makes little difference for most real-world usage. There are exceptions, and some types of uses where fragmentation can have a noticeable effect - but those are rare. If you think your system is slow because of fragmentation, then there will be other things (a faster disk, more memory, or a different approach to the task in hand) that will make a far bigger difference. Rod might not have been at his most polite in his reply, but he is correct. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Power failure during Windows 7 defrag (x64 Ultimate edition)
On 03/08/11 23:57, cjt wrote:
On 08/03/2011 10:40 AM, Arno wrote: Castor wrote: Hi all, Yesterday night, my Windows 7 started a disk defragmentation (Windows 7 defaultly scheduled a disk defrag once a week). Unfortunately, the Murphy's law was verified once again : the defrag started at 1:00 AM and my house had a general power failure at 1:10 AM in the middle of the C:\ defrag. Hopefully, I was able to reboot. I planned a CHKDSK from Windows 7 which successfully executed (upon next reboot). I did not find yet how to get the report (generated at boot time) but I read that I could get it from the Event Viewer in a Wininit event. Anyway, my system reboot fine and I do not notice any instability. * Is the CHKDSK execution enough ? Is there anything more that I should do ? I don't think so. * I read that NTFS based file systems could not be corrupted even if a crash or power failure occurred in the middle of a defrag process or any write operation ? Is it true ? Very likely untrue, as that would require a perfect implementation and a reliable flush-to-disk. In particular the second is not done on consumer grade disks, as the Linux kernel folks found out when they decided to not trust the specification but actually try it out. As it turns typical consumer disks can return from a write with disk-buffer flush _before_ the data is on disk. This is an exceedingly stupid thing to do by the HDD manufacturers, but hardly the first time they messed up. The most important practical consequence is that for reliable database commits you either have to use HDDs with buffer turned off (very slow, may be acceptable if you just put the DB journal on it), working flush (SCSI or SAS may have this as one of the very few advantages) or an UPS with orderly shut-down in case of power fail and generous waiting times before power is withdrawn from the disks after the flush command (should be standard on modern OSes). As to a perfect implementation, Microsoft is unlikely to have achieved that. That said, it typically works nonetheless, as in 99% or so of the time. Unlike FAT, NTFS is a lot harder to mess up. If CHKDSK does not complain you should be fine. Arno My understanding is that ZFS is pretty robust, even on somewhat shoddy disks. Many systems are pretty robust, even in the face of not-quite-honest hard disks and enabled disk write buffers. NTFS is not bad, and a world ahead of FAT. ZFS has a reputation of being very solid, as you say. But so also are most major Linux filesystems - ext3, ext4, xfs and jfs (and newcomer btrfs). Ironically, xfs is viewed as being /less/ robust on power failure, even though it is at least as good as the others - this comes from misunderstandings of the safest combinations of write buffers, barriers, etc., along with the xfs documentation which explains the problems that other filesystems mostly gloss over. While NTFS documentation implies that metafile journalling makes it safe, xfs documentation goes to lengths to explain how it is still unsafe, and how you can improve it. The best advice is to start out with the most appropriate filesystem for your system (NTFS for windows, typically ext4 or xfs for Linux, and ZFS for Solaris) depending on your requirements). Then read the advice in the filesystem documentation. Sometimes you have to choose a balance between performance issues and robustness in the face of crashes or power outage - that's /your/ choice. If you need solid reliability during power fails, get an UPS so that your system can shut down cleanly. /No/ filesystem will be entirely reliable without that. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Power failure during Windows 7 defrag (x64 Ultimate edition)
On 8/4/2011 6:34 AM, David Brown wrote:
Rod might not have been at his most polite in his reply, but he is correct. Most of us have him filtered out. -- Ed Light Better World News TV Channel: http://realnews.com Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related: http://ivaw.org http://couragetoresist.org http://antiwar.com Send spam to the FTC at Thanks, robots. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BSoD 0x7E Windows Vista Ultimate x64 | Animenia[_13_] | Homebuilt PC's | 3 | June 25th 08 04:06 PM |
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition | [email protected] | Dell Computers | 1 | February 13th 08 06:00 PM |
REQ: O&O Defrag Pro for X64 system | KJ | AMD x86-64 Processors | 0 | February 1st 06 03:36 AM |
Sapphire 9600 Pro Ultimate Edition | Nerd bloke | Ati Videocards | 1 | August 2nd 03 06:44 PM |