> El sábado, 2 de diciembre de 2006 20:44, Frans Pop escribió:
> > On Saturday 02 December 2006 14:36, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
> > >
> > > I put a statically linked version here to ease the testing.
> > > http://www.ntfs-3g.org/ntfsresize-1.13.1.1.tgz
> >
> > This version makes Vista happy too. After reboot chkdsk is executed and
> > on second reboot Vista boots successfully.
Thanks. So we know now the technical reason why ntfsresize didn't work
previously. Vista deliberately refuses to mount NTFS if it thinks it was
mounted by NT4. Though this wasn't very clear from the halt message :-)
> > There is a subtle difference: with Anton's fix the progress indicator
> > Vista shows during the initial stage of the boot runs much faster than
> > with this fix; unsure if that is significant though.
This is pure luck, random or user entertainment. The on-disk NTFS
filesystems are exactly the same in both cases, just the codes are
different a bit (I noted an important difference in an earlier email:
no modification is made to the volume in my version unless it found
to be consistent and all sanity checks pass).
> > P.S. Szakacsits and Anton:
> > As you both know I've invested a _huge_ amount of time in tracing this
> > issue and providing the information needed.
I couldn't have figured out the reason without your images. Thanks!
> > The first reaction was basically "this can't be our bug" and now that
> > it turns out it is,
Well, things worked as expected. We say we are NT4 to chkdsk and Vista
behaves according to the current Microsoft NT4 product support policy, that
is, it doesn't boot.
> > things run the risk of getting stuck in a kind of turf war between
> > developers.
There isn't any war here :-) Nobody knew what the problem was until you
confirmed the NT4 related suspicion now.
Anton was happy with the not understood fix which in fact was a bug in his
patch which made Vista to boot by pure luck. To be honest, I've been
working on ntfsresize alone for almost five years, and I very well know how
many things could go wrong easily if no special attention is taken. I've
never released a version which wasn't fully understood and very well
tested. So I'm strongly against any not understood fixes (which actually
indeed turned out to be a bug during Anton's changes).
The current Vista fixes (either one) could mean that maybe all non-Vista
(XP, W2K, W2K3) stop booting now or corrupt NTFS. I don't think so but I've
never tried and investigated it either.
Probably the safest way is doing what we did previously and use the fix
only with Vista. Ntfs-3g works fine with Vista, so since we can boot now
thus I don't think there would be any other unexpected problem.
> > I do appreciate all the help you both have provided, but I'd also really
> > appreciate if you'd make the effort to settle your differences and
> > release a fixed version.
Anton makes the choice for ntfsprogs. I've left the linux-ntfs project a
few days ago, and continue working only on ntfs-3g till there is interest.
But I'll make a fix for ntfsprogs-1.13.1, as soon as my time allows
(probably not more than a few days). It might be even part of ntfs-3g in
the future (online, offline resizing, defrag, etc). But these would be very
low priorities till the full write support is finished (only a couple of
decades left, if I counted it correctly).
Regards,
Szaka
