|
From: Anton A. <ai...@ca...> - 2004-05-06 10:38:30
|
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 11:30, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote: > On Thu, 6 May 2004, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 00:55, Dave Pacheco wrote: > > > I am using ntfsresize through qtparted[1] using the latest > > > SystemRescueCD (www.sysreccd.org), which claims to have ntfsprogs 1.9.0. > > > I'm trying to use it on a drive that has only 1 partition, which is > > > NTFS, and approximately 37GB in size. Approx. 17GB are being used. > > > > > > When trying to resize, it was first reported that I could only free up > > > about 1-2 MB. But clearly, there should be at least several GB of free > > > space available. If I read the documentation correctly, this version of > > > ntfsresize should be able to shrink the filesystem, even without > > > defragmenting first. However, just to check, I tried defragmenting the > > > drive with the Windows XP defragger. Ntfsresize was then able to free up > > > 90MB. This is still not nearly enough for my purposes (installing a > > > Debian system). > > > > > > Is this a known issue? Is there any known workaround? Or am I doing > > > something completely wrong...? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in > > > advance. > > > > Yes, I am not sure whether it is a bug or a feature (never got round to > > asking Szaka who wrote ntfsresize). > > I can think of only one of the (user friendly way) documented limitations, > MFT with attribute list attribute. > > > Basically you can ignore what ntfsresize reports and just try to > > shrink to a lower size. > > You can ignore but it's pointless becuase it shouldn't ever try to shrink > below the reported limit. It is always calculated and enforced, both at > --info and --size time. > > > If you are using ~17GB you should be able to > > resize down to ~18GB at least I would think. Just try it with the > > --no-action switch and if it succeeds do it again without the > > --no-action. Basically the --info option lies to you so you shouldn't > > rely on its output. (It doesn't take into consideration the fact that > > ntfsresize can move data around.) > > The --info option takes relocation into consideration but it's indeed an > estimate. However it's the most optimal estimate. So under that value > ntfsresize can never shrink. Well then your logic in ntfsresize is wrong. The user who had the same problem was able to resize to way lower than the reported size by --info and he was using ntfsresize... Best regards, Anton -- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK Linux NTFS maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/ |
