On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 18:02 +0200, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I have done previous tests using 1.13.1 too, indeed with no
> > difference in behavior. I have just upgraded my test system from etch to
> > sid, so all my following tests will use 1.13.1 again.
>
> Ok, thanks.
>
> > Yes, all my previous tests have been on real hardware (an em64t box).
> > I have just switched to vmware so I don't have to reinstall Vista every
> > time when I need to go back (which takes *way* to long...).
>
> You may use ntfsclone. It makes an exact copy (clone) and installs about at
> the maxumim disk speed. But yes, vmware snapshotting must be much faster ;)
>
> > The issue and behavior is identical. This also confirms that the issue is
> > not 32-bit / 64-bit related and in vmware I'm running i386.
>
> Interesting. Vista beta NTFS has a few new features but everything should be
> backward compatible.
>
> I've seen one of your Vista logs, when ntfsresize couldn't open the volume
> anymore after a reboot to Vista. This could mean that Vista didn't notice that
> the volume size has changed and it messed up the NTFS itself. In the past the
> same could happen if hibernated Windows was resized, until we added the
> detection.
Interesting point. I wonder if this is some kind of "boot cache" like
mechanism based on disk blocks to accelerate Vista startup. Thus when
ntfsresize moves things around the "boot cache" file becomes effectively
corrupt and Vista cannot start... Just a thought...
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://www.linux-ntfs.org/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
