On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Bird, Barry wrote:
> Thanks for taking an interest in this problem.
You're welcome :)
> Totally 1 cluster accounting mismatches
> ----
> Yes, it's always the same cluster number, and only one.
Just to be sure, did you run chkdsk between these tries?
> If you care to send me a special program that can extract slices
> of this filesystem for inspection, I'd be happy to run it and send
> you the results.
I recently finished 'ntfsclone'. This can be used to
1) make a full backup to a sparse file, another partiton or standard
output, e.g. for full backup through network (basically it's like
'dd' however it can be _much_ faster because it understands NTFS).
2) save only the important NTFS structures. This can be very
useful for developers for debugging, etc.
However it doesn't support inconsistent NTFS, if you think I could add this
feature, I'd be interested in 2).
If you do have backup then another, additional way could be I add optional
support for inconsistent NTFS to the development version of ntfsresize. I
don't think it would cause problems [of course you won't be able to resize
below to stalled/lost cluster], still I'm quite unwilling to do it because
people would use it instead of doing chkdsk (and that always fixed the NTFS
inconsistencies ... so far).
> PS I got hold of your ntfsmeta program
BTW, if you have 'fsutil' on your Windows (should be default or in the
Resource Kit), could you do a
fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo C:
> and ran it to get the 'boot record', if that helps (the small number of
> unused sectors seems at variance with the report in Windows that more
> than 91% of the disc is unused 8388736/39085137 = 21.5% unused! - I
> suppose I just don't know how to interpret this):
"Unused" below means the field is "unused", not "unused sectors".
"Reserved or "unknown" would have been a better naming. Well, actually
it's used, because it's value is usually 8388736 or 128 if NTFS is on
an USB device.
> Unused : 8388736
> Number of sectors : 39085137
Cheers,
Szaka
|